- The High Court in /Durban turned down a husband’s request to lower his monthly maintenance from R106,211.18 to R8,000.
- Judge Mathenjwa found that neither party’s financial circumstances had changed enough to justify altering the maintenance order.
- The husband was found in contempt of court and sentenced to 60 days in jail, suspended as long as he pays all outstanding maintenance and follows the court’s existing order.
A husband who cut the interim maintenance he was paying his estranged wife during their divorce has been ordered to resume paying R106,211.18 a month or face a 60-day jail sentence.
Judge MJ Mathenjwa dismissed the husband’s application to reduce maintenance to R8,000 a month and instead upheld the wife’s contempt application, finding he had deliberately ignored a court order.
The jail sentence was suspended until the divorce is final, as long as the husband settles all outstanding maintenance and continues to pay the full amount ordered by the court.
Husband wanted a major reduction
The couple has been going through divorce proceedings since 2018. In August 2022, the court ordered the husband to pay interim maintenance of R120,089.16 a month. After the family home’s bond was settled in January 2023, they agreed to reduce the monthly payment to R106,211.18.
The husband later asked the court to reduce the payment to R8,000 a month. He claimed his financial circumstances had changed because companies and trusts linked to him had stopped giving him loans that helped him meet his maintenance obligations.
He also said his wife’s finances had improved after the family’s Zimbali property was sold for R17 million, with the trust receiving about R13.8 million in net proceeds.
The wife opposed his application, arguing that the trust’s assets belonged to the trust, not to her personally. She also said the husband’s finances hadn’t worsened, pointing to evidence that he still received large payments into his bank account even though he claimed his only income was a monthly salary of R141,000.
Court finds no real change
Judge Mathenjwa said Rule 43 provides quick interim relief during divorce and requires both parties to be open and honest about their finances. Rejecting the husband’s argument, the judge said the ability to pay is not the same as being able to secure loans.
The judge also rejected the idea that the wife’s access to money from the trust meant she didn’t need maintenance, finding those funds were loans and didn’t show she was financially independent.
Judge Mathenjwa said any disputes about whether the trust or the husband’s companies were being used as someone’s alter ego would have to be dealt with during the divorce trial, not in the interim maintenance application.
After weighing the evidence, the court found the husband had not shown any real change in his or his wife’s financial circumstances that would justify lowering the maintenance order.
Maintenance payments cut without approval
The wife then brought contempt proceedings after the husband dropped his monthly payments to R8,000 from December 2024 without a court order allowing the reduction.
His lawyers told her he could no longer afford to pay the full maintenance and suggested she get financial support from the family trust instead. The husband argued that he couldn’t pay because it was financially impossible for him, not because he was deliberately ignoring the court order.
The wife said he hadn’t shown any real evidence that his actions were not wilful or in bad faith.
Judge finds husband acted on purpose
Judge Mathenjwa said the evidence did not back up the husband’s story. The judge found that even though the husband had filed an application to change the maintenance order, he cut the payments before getting any relief from the court and then let his application sit for over a year without action.
If he was serious about applying for a change, he would have treated it as urgent or at least secured a hearing date, not just filed the application and left it inactive, said Judge Mathenjwa.
The judge found that the husband’s failure to follow the maintenance order was deliberate and in bad faith. Judge Mathenjwa pointed out that contempt of court undermines the authority of the courts and the justice system as a whole.
Court order summary
Judge Mathenjwa dismissed the husband’s application to change the maintenance order and ordered him to pay costs on Scale B. The court found him in contempt of the Rule 43 maintenance order and sentenced him to 60 days in jail.
The jail sentence was suspended until the divorce is final, as long as the husband pays all outstanding maintenance and doesn’t miss any future payments. The husband also has to pay the costs of the contempt application on Scale C.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
