Wife's R130,000 maintenance claim fails as court finds she hid finances and exaggerated expenses

The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed a Rule 43 application brought by a woman seeking interim spousal maintenance, child maintenance, and a contribution toward legal costs pending the finalisation of her divorce

A Rule 43 application provides urgent and interim relief for spouses during pending divorce proceedings. It ensures swift, affordable, and temporary arrangements for spousal and child maintenance.

Acting judge Themba Khaba found that she failed to make full and honest disclosure of her financial position.

In a judgment, judge Khaba held that the wife had exaggerated her expenses and materially understated the financial support already being provided by her estranged husband. This lack of candour, the court found, was fatal to her claim for interim relief.

The parties, married out of community of property with accrual since October 2012, have two minor children aged nine and four. Following the breakdown of the marriage, the couple separated in December 2023. The children currently reside primarily with the mother, while the father has limited but regular contact.

The father had launched a counter-application seeking increased contact and shared residence of the children. While some additional overnight contact was discussed during the hearing, the court declined to alter the existing arrangements at this stage, citing insufficient evidence.

Instead, judge Khaba referred the issues of contact and residency to the office of the family advocate for a full investigation and report, emphasising the advocate’s neutral and advisory role in determining arrangements that serve the best interests of the children.

Until that report is finalised, the current contact regime will remain in place.

The wife sought R20,000 per month in interim child maintenance, R30,000 per month in spousal maintenance, and a R80,000 contribution toward legal costs. She argued that she had left the formal job market at her husband’s request to raise the children and that he had been the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage.

The husband, however, presented evidence that he already pays nearly R38,000 every month toward the wife's and children’s expenses, including direct cash payments, school fees, medical aid, and other costs. He also disputed claims about his income and denied that the wife lacked the ability to support herself.

After reviewing the evidence, the judge found that the wife failed to disclose the full extent of the husband's existing contributions and her own income.

Referring to an established case law, the judge stressed that Rule 43 applications demand the “utmost good faith” and full disclosure, warning that misleading the court can justify outright refusal of relief.

“The applicant (wife) pleaded being indigent,” the court noted, “but failed to take the court fully into her confidence.”

The court also rejected her request for a contribution toward legal costs, holding that she had not shown a prima facie entitlement. She failed to demonstrate a clear need, the respondent’s ability to pay, or the necessity of the amount claimed to place her case adequately before the court.

In a significant cost ruling, the court ordered the wife to pay the husband’s legal costs.

As a result, the application was accordingly dismissed in its entirety.

Meanwhile, the divorce action itself remains pending, with the family advocate’s investigation expected to play a key role in determining future arrangements concerning the minor children.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.