The application for interim maintenance and legal costs by an estranged wife who sought a monthly maintenance payment of R42,525, along with contributions towards medical aid premiums and substantial legal costs amounting to R513,844.87, has been dismissed by the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.
The matter saw the wife, identified as HDE, seeking substantial monthly maintenance payments retroactively from March 2024, as well as costs associated with an ongoing divorce trial and psychological therapy for their minor child. The dynamics of the couple's relationship, which has yielded a 15-year-old daughter currently living with the father DD in Croatia, have created a complex legal landscape rife with contention over parental responsibilities and financial obligations.
The couple’s marriage, entered into in community of property, has been marked by ongoing disputes since HDE initiated divorce proceedings on April 13, 2022. Since the December 2022 preliminary court ruling on their child’s living arrangements, unresolved matters, including asset division and lifelong maintenance, have remained contentious.
Financial assets and employment disputes
The estate of the couple consists mainly of the matrimonial home in Johannesburg and the husband’s pension benefits, which he alleged amounts to R4,929,233 before tax deductions of approximately R1,606,223. The current municipal value of the matrimonial home is R2,070,000.
The wife claims she had not been employed for the past 14 years, except for a brief period from 2019 to 2020 when she worked as a researcher for TEARS, an NGO, earning R10,000 per month, which she contributed towards their living expenses. Prior to that, she worked in various roles, including as a rental agent, sales consultant, and in the fabric department at St Lager and Viney.
She became a full-time housewife after the birth of their daughter to care for her, enabling the husband to concentrate on his career. Accordingly, he was the sole breadwinner during their marriage.
The husband, previously employed on a contract basis as a project manager by Catholic Relief Services, saw his employment end in September 2022. He was later employed by the same organisation in Croatia from December 2022, allegedly earning €5,494.66, equating to approximately R112,211.94 per month, subject to exchange rate fluctuations.
Maintenance payments and employment uncertainty
It is further alleged that upon relocating to Croatia, the husband contributed R30,000 per month towards the wife’s maintenance, which she used for her living expenses and home loan installment. In August 2023, he informed the wife that his employment would be terminated in December 2023.
However, the wife submitted an affidavit contesting his employment status, claiming he worked for Ambacia, a labor broker for Catholic Relief Services in Croatia, which had no formal legal presence in the country. The letter terminating his employment was allegedly unsigned and electronically mailed to him, with his last day of employment being the end of December 2023.
Currently unemployed, he has registered with the Croatian State Employment Agency, initially receiving €800.80 per month for three months, followed by half of that amount for six months. He no longer receives financial assistance from the Croatian government. While he is registered with Croatia’s state health coverage, their minor child does not yet qualify, requiring him to cover her medical needs separately.
Court ruling and child welfare considerations
Despite being informed about his impending job loss in December 2023, the wife sought to disprove his claims by conducting online searches. However, the husband denied the allegations, stating that the individual referred to was not him. He further dismissed claims regarding his alleged skills, arguing that they stemmed from a DIY project he completed at their matrimonial home, which did not qualify him for employment.
The court acknowledged the financial implications of appointing a receiver to manage the division of the couple’s estate. While the husband argued against this appointment, citing the estate’s simplicity, the court weighed the potential additional costs.
Additionally, the court considered the emotional impact on their daughter, who, according to the husband, wished to discontinue therapy sessions initiated by the mother. This further complicated the wife’s insistence that the husband should bear the costs of professional support.
Following a comprehensive review of the husband’s current financial state and their minor child's welfare, the court concluded that the wife’s request was not financially viable under the circumstances. As a result, her application for maintenance and ongoing legal support was dismissed, although the court ruled that the husband must continue paying the bond for their Johannesburg home, where the wife currently resides.
In delivering judgment, Judge MP Kumalo emphasised the husband's employment struggles and entrepreneurial aspirations. "I have no reason to disbelieve the husband’s averments that he is currently unemployed and currently seeking employment. He also avers that he is looking at setting up a business with his relatives. This, however, has not taken off yet," the judge stated.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel
