Deadbeat dad’s failure to pay child support leads to imprisonment

A father who was errant in paying his court-ordered maintenance was ordered to serve jail time if he did not cough up the arrears owed to the mother of his two minor children. 

The mother and father, who are divorced under Sharia Law while their civil marriage still subsists, both turned to the Western Cape High Court - the father in a counter-application - but the court found in favour of the mother as the primary caregiver of the children. 

The father - a repeat contempt of court offender - was sentenced to 240 hours of periodical imprisonment over weekends from 6pm on a Friday until 6am on a Monday until such time as the stipulated number of hours had been reached.

The sentence would have been suspended if he was able to pay the R16 000 maintenance arrears amount owed on or before 5pm on January 20, 2025 and complied with the Rule 43 (divorce and maintenance) order made in the high court in May 2021. 

The reasons given by acting judge Phillipa van Zyl, detailed that the father failed to pay certain expenses which included his ex-wife and children’s monthly rental as well as monthly DSTV/Multichoice, Netflix, internet/Wi-Fi subscription fee, yearly TV license costs, and the ex-wife’s monthly cell phone costs.

Acting Judge Van Zyl said the parties were at loggerheads and their affidavits in these proceedings were “brimful of invective” adding that this spilled over to litigation hearings where the aggression was palpable at the hearing. 

“This is an unfortunate situation, because it bodes ill for any possibility of resolving the disputes in a civil manner. The state of affairs cannot be a happy one for the children,” said acting Judge Van Zyl. 

The unpaid expenses giving rise to the contempt application consisted of two months’ rental in respect of the applicants’ and the minor children’s residence, for November 2024 and December 2024, in the total sum of R16 000. It also included various additional expenses payable in terms of the order for the period July to October 2024, in the total sum of R27 129,13. 

“On the day of the hearing, I was informed that the respondent had made payment of the additional expenses the previous day, albeit clearly grudgingly if regard is had to the content of his answering affidavit. The amounts owing in respect of rental remained unpaid,” noted acting Judge Van Zyl.

The man argued that the residence in which the woman lived was the deceased estate of the woman’s sister - which she is to inherit but is not yet the legal owner as the rental is paid to wind up the deceased estate.

“He accused the applicant of trying to extract more money from him under the pretence of having to pay rental. He therefore refused to contribute towards this rental, despite being obliged to do so in terms of the Rule 43 order. 

“The attorneys representing the estate also confirmed what the situation was…The respondent made no secret of the fact that he was dissatisfied with the terms of the Rule 43 order. From the papers it seemed that this has been the case since the grant of the order. He had faced a previous contempt application for non-payment of the Rule 43 order, in which an order was granted against him on 25 October 2024.

“The explanation for the respondent’s non-compliance is not satisfactory; they merely serve to convey the impression that he is so angry at the applicant that he would take every possible opportunity of thwarting her. The respondent deliberately did not pay, seeking to justify his conduct with a strained argument,” said acting Judge Van Zyl.

In his counter application to the court, the man sought for the appointment of a curator ad litem to the parties’ two minor children. 

According to the ex-husband, the children were being neglected and exposed to dubious influences. The court labelled these reasons as “speculative”. 

“(It was) not supported by any evidence that would raise a red flag in relation to the children’s well-being.”

Cape Times