Pretoria - A husband who five years ago during his divorce agreed to pay his wife R100 000 a month maintenance and buy her a new car every five years up until her death turned to court to try to get out of the agreement, as he argued that she now had a new lover who could take care of her.
The man, only identified as SM as the matter concerns issues of divorce, turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, in a bid to get out of his obligations.
He asked the court to declare that the settlement he had agreed to in 2017 (promising to pay her R100 000 a month until her death) actually implied that he could stop paying her maintenance when she remarried.
The man argued that because she now has a new live-in lover, it is as good as marriage.
He said at the time he had agreed to the maintenance settlement, he did not have a lawyer present and he simply wanted to get out of the marriage as soon as possible. He also said he did not really mean to pay her R100 000 indefinitely.
The husband, a successful restaurateur who also owns a panel beating shop, now regretted that he did not have an attorney present during the settlement negotiations.
The couple were married in 2004, out of community of property.
The husband testified the domestic worker who worked for his wife, as well as his daughter, told him his ex-wife now had a new lover, who lived with her in her upmarket Fourways home.
The man said the new lover was actually not all that new, as his wife had a child with him in 2012 – while they were still married. He called the domestic worker as his witness, who told the court that she worked for the ex-wife until January this year.
She said that over the months she had seen the lover, identified as B, at the house and his clothes were in the house on a permanent basis, which would indicate some kind of live-in arrangement, she said.
The worker further testified that B would only be at the house intermittently. He came and went, and would leave for a few days after staying over for two or three weeks.
The ex-wife, in her evidence, confirmed she was in an “on and off” romantic relationship with B; he would visit for days at a time before returning to his own residence in Houghton.
She said they have an intermittent romantic relationship but they are not married, nor was lobola ever paid. She never considered entering into a marriage with him. They had the child together in 2012 and then reconnected in 2021 on a romantic basis.
They then separated again in November 2022 and rekindled their relationship in February 2023.
Acting Judge J Moorcroft said the husband made bold statements that the agreement he signed in 2017 was not enforceable, as it implied (without ever stating so in writing) that he could stop paying if his wife remarried.
But the judge said the settlement agreement was clear – that the wife will get a new car every five years and R100 000 maintenance a month – until her death. He said it was never implied this would stop if she ever got married.
The judge said no argument had been made out that the well-known word “remarriage” must be interpreted to include something that is not a marriage but a cohabitation.
It was argued on behalf of the man that the recognition of same-sex relationships and permanent life partnerships
between people merited the recognition of co-habitation as a “marriage” and therefore that the alleged cohabitation between the woman in this case and her lover meant the duty to maintain her – as per the divorce settlement – was terminable. The judge said there was no merit in this argument.
“The fact that the law now recognises other relationships as akin to marriage and the parties to such relationships equally deserving of the protection of the law does not mean that in the settlement agreement now before court the word ‘marriage’ should be given an extended definition never intended by the parties.”
The result is that the ex-husband must cough up until his ex-wife’s death.
Pretoria News