A Woman in the midst of a divorce told the High Court that she spends more than R110,000 per month to support herself and her four children, and that she expects her husband to pay more than R68,000 for their maintenance.
The wife petitioned the North West High Court in Mahikeng under Rule 43 for interim maintenance pending their divorce.
The couple married in 2015 out of community of property, which excludes the accrual system.
They have two biological children and adopted twins from the wife’s deceased sister.
In her application, she noted that her husband currently pays roughly R34,000 for her and the children’s maintenance, which she argues is insufficient to meet all of their needs.
She presented the court with a financial disclosure form indicating that her and her children’s monthly expenses surpass R110,400, with the children’s expenses exceeding R69,000.
She contended that her husband should pay at least R68,430 for the upkeep of the children and herself.
She noted that she currently receives R44,000 per month, but her pay will be reduced to R36,900 next year.
She also took out a loan for more than R444,000 to buy a new home and furniture.
She claimed to pay R28,000 in rent and R7,000 for the loan.
She claimed that her husband could afford the sum she demanded because he had always financed their opulent lifestyle, including their R25 million home.
The woman also said that they hired three domestic staff, an au pair, and two gardeners, indicating that their services were still required owing to her work obligations.
She mentioned their overseas trips on her husband’s company aircraft and hired helicopters, as well as an R1.4 million car he gave her and an R2 million car he drives, both of which are fully paid for.
In his defense, the husband accused his wife of overstating her expenses and neglecting to produce documentary evidence. He claimed the rental price was inflated by about R10,000 and denied that his automobile was fully paid, claiming it had a debt of R1.4 million with a monthly payment of R29,000. He said that his father paid for their holidays and that his wife could pay the necessary maintenance due to her money. He reported his own profits as R64,000.
Judge Sandiswa Mfenyana stated that the husband wanted a ruling against his wife but did not give proof of his income. The judge accepted that, while the husband’s father may have contributed financially, this did not fully explain their lifestyle spending. Judge Mfenyana decided that the husband had the means to offer a nice lifestyle for his family, which could not be accomplished on a wage of R64,000.
After assessing both parties’ financial capabilities, the judge ordered the husband to provide at least R45,510 per month toward the support of his children and wife, except school fees, which must be paid directly to the school. He was also forced to pay R100,000 for the wife’s legal fees.
