An unemployed woman who is in the middle of a divorce from her estranged husband was denied interim maintenance after the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg discovered that she lives with her new partner who financially supports her.
The woman, a British national, sought financial assistance after her estranged husband ceased maintenance payments following their separation.
Their marriage, which lasted from 2008 until their separation in 2020, produced two children, who are still being financially supported by the husband.
The court had previously established that he would pay maintenance for both the children and his wife until their divorce was finalised. However, the husband stopped paying maintenance for his wife when she took the children and moved in with her boyfriend in November 2023.
The husband only paid R6,450 for maintenance for the children and also covered all their school expenses.
However, in her application, the woman said the children's expenses were over R29,000.
She also wanted her husband to pay her legal fees because since their divorce started in 2020, her parents loaned her over R137,0000 and her boyfriend gave her over R128,000.
Acting Judge Fiona Marcandonatos presided over the matter and noted that even though the woman wanted interim maintenance from her estranged husband, she received support from her current partner which included free housing, funds deposited into her bank account, and she had unlimited access to his Woolworths card.
Judge Marcandonatos further noted that in terms of Rule 43, no spousal cash maintenance was granted in favour of the woman when they started their divorce proceedings, instead the husband was ordered to retain the wife on his medical aid scheme, make monthly payments in respect of her BMW X3, including the motor vehicle’s maintenance, insurance and services.
However, she returned the vehicle to her husband.
The judge said that the courts have long held that it is improper for a man to be expected to maintain a woman living with another man, as “husband and wife”.
She added that it would violate principles of justice and equity to require the husband to continue supporting his wife while she resides with another man.
"It is apparent that the applicant (woman) has had the resources available to her to litigate and that there is no danger that she does not continue to have the resources to fund her ongoing legal costs and to fight for what she is rightfully entitled to," she said.
Regarding her legal fees, she said has not provided the court with proof that she has to pay back the money she got from her partner for legal fees.
"I am therefore not inclined, at this time, to grant the applicant a contribution to either her past and/or future costs, it being common cause that the applicant may approach court at any stage hereafter for such a contribution if her circumstances change," said the judge.
However, Judge Marcandonatos increased the child maintenance to R16,000 per month saying the woman was unemployed and the father could afford to contribute more to the children's expenses as the mother's partner was not obliged to contribute to the children.
IOL