An unemployed woman embroiled in a divorce from her estranged husband has been denied interim maintenance by the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, after it was revealed that she is financially supported by her new partner.
The woman, a British national, sought financial assistance from her husband after he ceased maintenance payments following their separation. The couple, married from 2008 until their separation in 2020, has two children, who continue to receive financial support from the husband.
Initially, the court had ordered the husband to pay maintenance for both his wife and children until the finalisation of their divorce. However, in November 2023, the husband stopped making payments to his wife when she moved in with her boyfriend, taking the children with her.
Despite the husband’s monthly payment of R6,450 for the children’s maintenance and covering all their school expenses, the woman argued in her application that their expenses exceeded R29,000. Additionally, she requested her husband cover her legal fees, claiming her parents loaned her over R137,000 and her boyfriend contributed more than R128,000 since the divorce proceedings began in 2020.
Presiding over the case, Acting Judge Fiona Marcandonatos noted that the woman received considerable support from her current partner, including free housing, deposits into her bank account, and unrestricted access to his Woolworths card. The judge emphasized that, under Rule 43, no spousal cash maintenance had been granted to the woman at the commencement of divorce proceedings. Instead, the husband was instructed to retain her on his medical aid scheme and cover the monthly payments, maintenance, insurance, and servicing of her BMW X3—a vehicle she later returned to him.
Judge Marcandonatos highlighted that courts have consistently ruled it inappropriate for a man to be obligated to maintain a woman cohabiting with another man as though they were husband and wife. She asserted that continuing to require the husband’s support under these circumstances would breach principles of justice and equity.
“It is apparent that the applicant 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,” the judge remarked. Concerning the woman’s legal fees, Judge Marcandonatos pointed out that she had not provided evidence indicating an obligation to repay her partner for his financial contributions.
“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,” she concluded.
However, acknowledging the woman’s unemployment and the father’s capacity to provide greater financial support, Judge Marcandonatos increased the child maintenance to R16,000 per month. She clarified that while the mother’s partner is not obligated to contribute to the children’s expenses, the father has the means to shoulder a larger share of their financial needs.
