The parties are married out of community of property, with accrual and two minor children born of the marriage.
The wife instituted divorce proceedings against the husband on May 6 2021, which are still pending a final determination.
In respect of a rule 43 application for interim maintenance brought by the wife, the husband was ordered to pay a cash sum of R8,851.97 per month per child (totalling R17,703.94) interim maintenance and R10,000 per month to the wife as spousal maintenance.
In August, the husband launched an application for a variation of the interim maintenance.
He argued that the wife’s income had materially increased since the rule 43 proceedings and for that reason, he should not continue being liable to pay spousal maintenance.
She conceded that her income had increased and that her net income after tax was about R15,000, an increase from R10,000 she had disclosed during the rule 43 application.
However, she argued that the increase did not constitute a material change.
The husband, on the other hand, had been through the wife’s Financial Disclosure Form and bank statements with a fine comb.
He gave a detailed breakdown of her financials and ultimately argued that she earned an average income of R34,742 per month based on the transactions in the bank statements in respect of all her bank accounts for the period between January to August.
The wife further disputed that she had other bank accounts that she had not disclosed.
Yet, she failed to give a clear account of the income generated from an income generating business which was advertised on her Facebook page with an access bar course costing R4,350 per person.
According to the information provided, at least 37 people attended the course between May 18 2022 and April 26 2023.
Despite being confronted with this information and a request for full disclosure of all her business accounts, she failed to do so.
The court agreed with the husband that the wife had not approached the court with clean hands as there were various inconsistencies in her explanation as to her income.
To make matters worse, this explanation was not volunteered at the first available opportunity nor mentioned during the rule 43 application.
In evaluating the evidence, the court was persuaded that the variation order in respect of the spousal maintenance should be retrospective.
It was ordered that the husband is absolved from paying the wife an amount of R10,000 per month as spousal maintenance with effect from September 1.
TINA HOKWANA | Spousal maintenance stopped as wife’s extra income hidden
Image: 123RF
The parties are married out of community of property, with accrual and two minor children born of the marriage.
The wife instituted divorce proceedings against the husband on May 6 2021, which are still pending a final determination.
In respect of a rule 43 application for interim maintenance brought by the wife, the husband was ordered to pay a cash sum of R8,851.97 per month per child (totalling R17,703.94) interim maintenance and R10,000 per month to the wife as spousal maintenance.
In August, the husband launched an application for a variation of the interim maintenance.
He argued that the wife’s income had materially increased since the rule 43 proceedings and for that reason, he should not continue being liable to pay spousal maintenance.
She conceded that her income had increased and that her net income after tax was about R15,000, an increase from R10,000 she had disclosed during the rule 43 application.
However, she argued that the increase did not constitute a material change.
The husband, on the other hand, had been through the wife’s Financial Disclosure Form and bank statements with a fine comb.
He gave a detailed breakdown of her financials and ultimately argued that she earned an average income of R34,742 per month based on the transactions in the bank statements in respect of all her bank accounts for the period between January to August.
The wife further disputed that she had other bank accounts that she had not disclosed.
Yet, she failed to give a clear account of the income generated from an income generating business which was advertised on her Facebook page with an access bar course costing R4,350 per person.
According to the information provided, at least 37 people attended the course between May 18 2022 and April 26 2023.
Despite being confronted with this information and a request for full disclosure of all her business accounts, she failed to do so.
The court agreed with the husband that the wife had not approached the court with clean hands as there were various inconsistencies in her explanation as to her income.
To make matters worse, this explanation was not volunteered at the first available opportunity nor mentioned during the rule 43 application.
In evaluating the evidence, the court was persuaded that the variation order in respect of the spousal maintenance should be retrospective.
It was ordered that the husband is absolved from paying the wife an amount of R10,000 per month as spousal maintenance with effect from September 1.
TINA HOKWANA | Husband loses out on spousal maintenance
TINA HOKWANA | Polygamist forfeits share of pension in divorce to 1st wife
TINA HOKWANA | Court finds reasonable punishment after husband failed to pay spousal maintenance
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Related articles
Latest Videos