Divorce court resolves bitter dispute over maintenance and household items.
Image: AI Generated
The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban has dismissed competing contempt of court applications brought by a divorcing couple, instead ordering the husband to settle outstanding rental and furniture costs while directing the wife to return several household items to the matrimonial home.
The ruling follows an escalating dispute between the couple, who are currently involved in pending divorce proceedings.
The conflict stems from a Rule 43 interim maintenance order granted on 23 February 2025, which regulated the couple’s financial and living arrangements while their divorce case proceeds.
Under the order, the husband was required to:
Pay the wife R65,000 per month in maintenance.
Cover the medical and educational expenses of their minor child.
Pay up to R45,000 per month in rent for accommodation after the wife vacated the matrimonial home in Ballito.
The order also dealt with the division of household furniture and allowed the wife to remove certain belongings from a storage unit.
In June 2025, the wife approached the court on an urgent basis seeking to have the husband declared in contempt of court.
She alleged he had failed to comply with the February 2025 order by failing to pay R45,000 rental for April 2025, and not paying R120,000 intended for the purchase of furniture.
The wife also sought additional relief from the court, including permission to relocate to another estate in Ballito and an order compelling the husband to pay for a forensic psychologist to assess their minor child.
The husband opposed the application and launched a counter-application, accusing the wife of breaching the same court order.
He alleged that she had removed furniture from the matrimonial home in violation of the order and demanded that she return several items which he claimed were worth more than R630,000.
The wife disputed this valuation, arguing that the items were old and collectively worth approximately R43,570. She maintained that she had only taken personal belongings, gifts, and furniture necessary to set up a home for herself and their child.
The court found that neither party had proven contempt of court.
To establish contempt, the court said a party must show that the other wilfully and in bad faith refused to comply with a court order.
Although the husband had failed to pay the April 2025 rental and the R120,000 furniture contribution, the judge found there was insufficient evidence that his conduct was deliberate or malicious.
Similarly, the court held that the dispute over the ownership and value of the furniture could not be resolved on the papers before it and would likely need to be determined during the divorce trial.
Despite dismissing both contempt applications, the court ordered the husband to pay R45,000 for the outstanding April 2025 rental, and R120,000 towards furniture costs.
He was also directed to grant the wife access to a storage facility within one month so that she could collect certain belongings.
In turn, the wife was ordered to return the following items to the matrimonial home within one month:
Black lounge suite
Coffee table
Carpet
Rocking chair
Wicker chair
Big Green Egg
Wooden carved chair
Stone side table
Gold side table
Wood side table
The court rejected the wife’s request to relocate to another estate in Ballito and her request for the appointment of a forensic psychologist for the child, noting that she had previously abandoned these claims in earlier proceedings.
Because both parties achieved partial success, the court ordered that each side must pay their own legal costs.
The judge noted that the ongoing dispute over furniture and other matters will ultimately be resolved during the pending divorce trial.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News