Story audio is generated using AI
The Limpopo High Court has quashed a divorce order that required a man to pay his ex-wife R2,000 a month. lifetime maintenance.
The court said that the woman failed to prove that she needed financial support after the divorce.
The high court said the lower court, where the divorce hearing took place, had largely failed to appreciate the evidence of the woman, who claimed to be unemployed and dependent on her husband. financial assistance.
At the time, she said she also ran a tuck shop and cake-baking business, which earned her about R650 per month.
The couple got married community of property in 2000 and later divorced after the breakdown of their marriage. The regional court in Lebowakgomo had earlier ordered the husband to pay his ex-wife Sh2,000 every month until she dies or remarries.
But the husband appealed the decision, arguing that the court had made a mistake because his ex-wife did not show proper evidence of her financial needs.
In an appeal decision handed down on May 22, judges Mueller and Pillay agreed with the husband.
The judges said the woman sought alimony of Rs 10,000 during the divorce case, but failed to explain how she calculated the amount or provide clear proof of her monthly expenses.
“The learned Regional Magistrate erred and acted in a misguided manner in finding that the respondent was entitled to lifelong maintenance, whereas the respondent admitted that she was still of employable age and was self-employed by operating a tuck shop in a nearby school, and had a baking business.
The judgment said, “The regional magistrate failed to investigate the respondent's income per month from the tuck shop and his baking business. Only a blank statement was made that the appellant was a lawyer, while the respondent was unemployed.”
According to the ruling, South African law does not automatically give divorced spouses the right to maintenance. The person asking for support must show the court that they are unable to support themselves financially.
The husband argued that his ex-wife earned money from cake selling and tuck shop business. He told the court that the lower court ignored these facts while awarding lifelong maintenance.
The appeal court also found that a proper investigation was not conducted into the husband's financial situation and whether he could pay the maintenance amount.
The judges criticized the lower court for failing to explain how it arrived at the R2,000 figure. He called it a serious mistake which affected the fairness of the decision.
The High Court said that the “clean break” principle should be followed wherever possible in divorce cases. This means that former spouses should become financially independent after the divorce, unless there are strong reasons for continued support.
Due to lack of evidence, the High Court completely vacated the maintenance order and replaced it with a new order, stating that no maintenance would be paid by the spouse to the woman.
However, the husband will continue to support the children of the marriage. The court ordered them to pay Rs 3,000 for a minor child and Rs 6,000 for an adult dependent child.
He also has to pay school fees, hostel fees, transportation, uniform, stationery, tertiary education costs and medical expenses for the children.
The court also overturned parts of the original divorce order relating to the division of joint property. The judges found that the lower court did not properly dispose of all the assets and debts of the marriage before rendering its decision.
Although the husband won the appeal, the court decided that each party must pay its own legal costs as the case involved a family dispute.
sowetan