- A Facebook post revealing a baby shower exposed an affair and led to pension forfeiture.
- Judge Bam ruled the wife’s conduct constituted substantial misconduct under the Divorce Act.
- Custody and maintenance were granted fairly, recognising the wife’s domestic role.
When a Pretoria husband discovered his wife’s affair with his friend, the marriage was already on shaky ground.
The High Court in Pretoria heard that the real rupture came when the husband stumbled upon a Facebook post announcing a baby shower for a child fathered by another man. The couple, married in community of property since 2011, had not lived together since 2020.
The husband told the court he was the sole breadwinner and described the humiliation of learning about the new child online. Judge N Bam wrote, “That must have humiliated the defendant,” highlighting the very public nature of the disclosure.
Legal battle over pension forfeiture
The key issue before the court was whether the wife should forfeit her claim to her husband’s R2.3 million pension fund. Section 9 of the Divorce Act empowers courts to order forfeiture if, after considering the duration of the marriage, the circumstances of its breakdown, and any substantial misconduct, one party would be unduly benefited.
Judge Bam explained, “What I regard as misconduct is not only the plaintiff’s involvement with a third party but the act of procreating with a third party and then publicising the birth by posting messages of her baby shower on Facebook. That must have humiliated the defendant. The combination of all these events amounts to misconduct.”
The judge further found, “The answer to the question in my view is a clear yes, the plaintiff will certainly be benefited in the event the court does not make an order of forfeiture.” Judge Bam added, “On this basis, the plaintiff will be unduly benefited were the court not to make the forfeiture order of the defendant’s pension.”
Children custody and maintenance
Although the wife was denied a share of the pension, the court acknowledged her role at home. Judge Bam stated, “To the plaintiff’s credit, without her testimony, I am prepared to accept that as a mother who stayed at home, she was responsible for the upkeep of the family home, supporting the defendant and the children in their daily life.”
The wife was awarded permanent residence for the couple’s minor children, and both parents were granted joint parental rights and responsibilities. The husband was granted extensive contact, including alternate weekends, holidays, and birthdays, and ordered to pay R2 000 per child each month in maintenance. Each party was ordered to pay its own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
