A husband who never had a fixed job during his marriage and apparently refused to look for work, while also cheating on his wife, will lose his 50% portion of her pension upon their divorce, and he will not receive monthly maintenance from her.
A husband who never had a fixed job during his marriage and apparently refused to look for work, while also cheating on his wife, will lose his 50% portion of her pension upon their divorce, and he will not receive monthly maintenance from her.
The wife turned to the high court sitting in Bloemfontein to obtain a divorce from her husband. While the wife had no problem in dividing the assets of their household between her and her husband, she was adamant that he may not “be unduly enriched” by getting half of her pension.
The wife, a police officer, said she had been working hard during their marriage to try and provide for the household, which included one child.
This while the husband, according to her, sat around the house and refused to look for work.
The parties were married in community of property in 2017. The plaintiff, a 41-year-old police officer, issued a divorce summons against her husband in 2022.
As part of the divorce order, she asked that he forfeit his 50% share of her pension fund.
In a counterclaim, the husband asked for division of the assets of the joint estate, which includes 50% share in the plaintiff’s pension fund. He was also seeking spousal maintenance of R5 000 a month.
The wife told the court that she worked hard and during the Covid pandemic she even started a business selling meat to the local community on credit to supplement her SAPS salary.
She said that her husband did not contribute to the growth of the joint estate, particularly her pension fund benefits, never had a fixed income or permanent employment, and continually changed jobs.
She maintained that she mainly contributed to the household expenses and that the husband failed to financially provide for their needs as he was mostly jobless.
According to her, he was not only unemployed, but refused to look for work. Their fights were sparked by her attempts to help him seek employment.
The wife said he was verbally abusive and he physically assaulted her when he slapped her on one occasion, which left her with a bruised eye.
According to her, he also had numerous affairs with other women.
But the husband said he is the one who maintained the family because the wife had many debts. He insisted that he raised the child as his wife “often got drunk” and thus he could not look for a job.
The husband said that she was constantly late for work and would, on occasion, have to be fetched by colleagues. He stated, however, that there were no disciplinary steps taken against her.
The wife testified that the marriage was harmonious until 2018 when the husband started cheating on her, swearing at her, telling her that she was a w**** and that was sleeping with other men.
She denied having a drinking problem and testified that she saw him with other women when she would drive through the streets in an unmarked police car.
She, however, loved him, and it was very difficult when she and her child had to leave their home, when things became too much for her.
The court remarked that unless the parties make precisely the same contribution to the joint estate, whether prior to the marriage or during the subsistence of the marriage, the one who has contributed less at the termination of the marriage will necessarily be benefitted, unless an order of forfeiture is made.
It found that the wife provided evidence pertaining to the alleged undue benefit that will befall the husband in the event that forfeiture is not ordered.
Regarding the husband’s demand that the wife pay him R5 000 maintenance a month, the court remarked that a marriage creates a reciprocal duty of support between spouses. This duty terminates upon death or divorce.
Our law does not provide for a right to spousal maintenance when parties divorce. Spousal maintenance is a creature of statute and depends on the discretion of the court.
The court added that if the circumstances permit, our courts will generally attempt to achieve a “clean break” between the parties. In this matter, a clean break is possible.
The court subsequently ordered that the husband forfeit half of his wife’s pension and turned down the husband’s application for maintenance.
Pretoria News
Related Topics: