A woman who had left her husband nearly 26 years ago without finalizing a divorce has now returned to seek a share of his substantial pension fund, as he nears retirement. This sudden interest in her husband’s pension benefits has sparked a legal battle, with the husband fiercely opposing her claim.
The couple married in 1994, with their union registered in community of property. However, by 1998, the wife had left their home, reportedly refusing to care for her husband, who was recovering from injuries sustained in a car accident. Despite their separation, the couple never went through with a divorce. Over the years, the husband continued his career as a police officer, while the wife supported herself with a job cleaning offices. Their children were cared for by the husband’s family in Limpopo.
The wife’s decision to file for divorce came to light only as her husband neared retirement, and she learned about the substantial value of his government pension fund. She argued that, as she was still legally married to him, she was entitled to a share of the pension. In response, the husband, who had worked hard over 31 years in the South African Police Service, countered that his wife was not entitled to any significant portion of the pension, as she had left him many years ago and never contributed to his career or his pension.
The husband requested the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to rule that the wife forfeit her share of his pension. He contended that, after having lived apart for so long, and with his contributions to the pension fund spanning over three decades, the wife should only be entitled to a small fraction, limited to the years they were actually together.
The court examined the couple’s history and the nature of their separation. It acknowledged that while they had a marriage lasting 38 years, they had lived together for only a few of those years before each went their separate ways. The wife, the court noted, had no involvement in the husband’s career or the accumulation of his pension. Her claim, coming so many years after their separation, appeared to be motivated by the impending pension payout rather than any genuine financial or emotional involvement during their years apart.
The court ultimately sided with the husband, determining that the wife was only entitled to 20% of his pension, rather than the 50% she had sought. The judge stated that the wife’s decision to file for divorce was directly linked to the discovery of the pension fund’s value, likening it to a “pot of gold” at the end of the rainbow.
In this case, the wife’s long separation from her husband and her lack of involvement in his career and pension contributions were significant factors in the court’s decision. While the couple had once been married in community of property, the court found that the wife’s claim to a substantial portion of the pension was not justified, given the years they had spent apart and her lack of contributions to the husband’s financial well-being over the course of his career.
