A KwaZulu-Natal father who claimed R76,000 in maintenance from his wife was left red-faced after the high court found he had spent thousands of rand on cryptocurrencies and online dating.

The father, who cannot be named to protect the couple’s 13-year-old child, hauled his wife before the high court and demanded R8,500 monthly for utilities, R6,000 for food and essentials, R120 for a vehicle tracker, and R500 for entertainment for the minor child — among other things. The items he listed amounted to R26,270.

“The applicant also seeks a contribution to costs in the sum of R50,000. The applicant has not quantified how the sum of R50,000 has been arrived at,” the judgment handed down by the high court in Durban this month reads.

The couple were married in 2005 out of community of property with accrual. But the wife moved out of the family home, with the child, in August 2021. The mother told the court that “all of the minor child's maintenance needs are taken care of by her”. 

It turned out the father had not revealed all his sources of income — and his bank statement revealed he had spent more than R17,000 on cryptocurrency and online dating. This was despite his counsel having told the court “he has made full disclosure of his financial circumstances, and was unable to maintain his standard of living”.

On his financial disclosure form, the father said he had earned R150,000 from selling cannabidiol (CBD) oils during the financial year that ended in February. But the wife told the court he earned an income from another business, which he had run for 10 years but had failed to disclose.

“Disconcertingly, an analysis of the applicant's personal bank account statement with First National Bank for the period December 9 2022 to January 9 2023 ... reveals numerous credits made to this account — apparently (and most probably) from [the company he failed to disclose] since they bear the reference 'FNB App Payment from Web Design'. These credits total R18,500 for that month,” the judgment reads

“Furthermore, additional credits to the same account and for the same period totalling R4,850 appear to be from clients of [the company]. Therefore, the total income not disclosed in the applicant's financial disclosure form — since the income was most probably from [the company], which was not disclosed — over this one-month period amounts to R23,350.”

The court also found he received additional income. “This consisted of at least a rental income ... which had at one stage, on the applicant's version, amounted to R6,000, but which I was informed from the bar had subsequently been reduced to R4,500. It is unclear whether the applicant currently receives any rental income,” the judgment reads.

“A particularly disturbing feature of this application relates to the applicant's expenditure. It is apparent from the analysis of the applicant's FNB bank statements, which is annexed as 'A' to the respondent's sworn statement that, over the three-month period covered, the applicant spent R12,730 on purchasing cryptocurrency and R4,432.03 on online dating.”

The wife claimed the cryptocurrency purchases and online dating payments were made after he had asked for money from her on the pretext that he had no money to meet his expenses.

“Bearing in mind that a significant portion of the expenses was incurred for online dating, it is overwhelmingly likely that the respondent was not informed of the true use to which the funds had been put,” the judgment reads.

“The allegation of falsely crying poverty therefore seems well substantiated and points to a level of financial irresponsibility and dishonesty which fatally undermines the entire application, particularly in the light of the applicant's failure to make full and proper disclosure of his income.”

The court found the father had not come to court with “clean hands”.

“By parity of reasoning, I am unable to assess the merits of the application for a contribution towards costs. In any event, the applicant has failed to itemise his anticipated costs to allow for a proper assessment thereof,” the judgment reads.

“In addition, the probabilities disclosed on the papers — with particular reference to the applicant's expenditure as dealt with above — are that the applicant is, in any event, able to support himself on the income which he receives and, whatever the true position, there does not appear to be dire need on the applicant's part.”

The court dismissed the application and slapped the father with the legal costs.

TimesLIVE