Publications
Partners
- The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has ordered a man to continue paying maintenance to his ex-wife, rejecting his claim that she earns a lot of money.
- The man alleged that she earns between R88 000 and R153 000 per month.
- However, a judge said the man's case was based on "speculation" and that it was unsupported by direct evidence made under oath.
The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has rejected a man's plea to have his maintenance obligations towards his ex-wife revoked on the basis that, according to him, she earns up to R153 000 a month.
This judgment was delivered on 9 January after Judge Stuart Wilson gave it "careful consideration" and found that the man's case was rooted in "speculation".
According to court papers, the man's obligation to pay interim maintenance to his ex-wife was imposed in terms of a court order an acting judge had granted on 29 November 2019.
It wasn't until recently that the man requested that the obligation be suspended.
The judge granted his order on 18 October 2022.
The woman was allowed to file financial disclosures that could be assessed alongside the man's claim that the ex-wife was no longer in need of the maintenance.
Her financial disclosures were filed on 17 November 2022, and the man filed a supplementary affidavit 13 days later.
READ | Equality control: Couple challenges South Africa's 'discriminatory' maternity leave laws
In his affidavit, the man alleged that his ex-wife no longer needed maintenance because she worked made between R88 000 and R153 000 per month as an escort.
However, the woman denied the allegations, saying her income as an escort did not exceed a few thousand rand a month.
Wilson, who was not convinced by the man's case, said his allegations were neither based on personal knowledge nor documents proving her earnings. Instead, they were based on a "series of inferences drawn on a private investigator's report and a set of internet advertisements for [the woman's] services".
The judge said the man had failed to take his case further and that he had relied heavily on inferences drawn from the private investigator's report to press a series of beliefs that his ex-wife was being "dishonest" about her income and "hiding" additional bank accounts and sources of income from the court.
As a result, the judge said the man's case was unsupported by any direct evidence made under oath, making it an unsound foundation for a finding.
Had the man proved his allegations, on a balance of probabilities, a material change in his ex-wife's circumstances in the form of a substantially increased income, he would have succeeded in being relieved of his maintenance obligations, the judge said.
ALSO READ | A summons for you can be served on a security guard at your complex, court rules
"In order to succeed in being finally relieved of his maintenance obligations, [the man] had to allege and prove, on a balance of probabilities, a material change in [the woman's] circumstances in the form of a substantially increased income.
"When read in light of [his ex-wife's] financial disclosures, [his] case, the evidentiary foundation of which was never expanded beyond the private investigator's report and the internet advertisements, ultimately falls short of that standard," Wilson found.
He also refused the man's application for the return of a vehicle made available for his ex-wife's use.
