- The court finds no material change in circumstances to justify reducing interim spousal maintenance.
- Husband’s bank records and expenses are described as confusing, unexplained, and unreliable.
- Application dismissed with costs, leaving earlier maintenance and legal fee contribution intact.
A husband who asked the High Court in Johannesburg to free him from paying R20 000 a month in spousal maintenance has walked away empty-handed after the court found his claims of financial collapse simply did not add up.
Judge MA Makume refused to vary an earlier Rule 43 interim maintenance order, concluding that the applicant had failed to prove any genuine or material change in his financial circumstances. Instead, the judge questioned the credibility of his disclosures and ordered him to pay his wife’s legal costs as well.
At the heart of the dispute was a familiar story in drawn-out divorce litigation. One party says they cannot pay. The other says the money is simply being hidden. The court ultimately sided with the latter view.
A history of interim orders and arrears
The maintenance battle dates back years. In November 2024, Acting Judge A Miennaar ordered the husband to pay his wife R20 000 per month in spousal maintenance and contribute R150 000 towards her legal costs, payable in instalments. He was also required to allow her to stay rent-free in the former matrimonial home and provide a roadworthy vehicle.
When he fell into arrears, the order was later restructured to help him catch up, and his monthly obligation was temporarily reduced to R15 000 pending this variation application. Even then, he sought to escape the obligation entirely.
He told the court bluntly, “I simply do not possess the necessary funds to pay the Respondent R20 000 per month and to contribute to her legal fees in the sum of R150 000.” But the paperwork he relied on did not persuade the judge.
A financial picture that raised more questions than answers
Judge Makume described the husband’s financial records as opaque and contradictory. Bank statements reflected unexplained deposits and withdrawals. A personal credit card showed a R125 000 limit, which the judge said was difficult to reconcile with a claimed salary of about R46 000 per month. Company accounts showed money moving in and out without explanation.
Payslips fluctuated
Several listed expenses were merely “estimates” rather than verified figures. Some costs, the judge noted, should simply be cut.
“I find it difficult how on a salary of R46 000 he is able to service that account,” the court said of the credit facility.
The judge also singled out discretionary spending that undermined the claim of hardship, including legal fees, credit card payments, overdraft servicing, and clothing allowances.
Overseas medical trips questioned
The husband further argued that chronic kidney disease required treatment in India, which he said added to his financial strain.
The court was not convinced. Medical reports did not state that treatment abroad was necessary, and there was no evidence that equivalent specialists were unavailable in South Africa. “There is, in my view no basis to allow those expenses,” the judge said.
The court also found it “disturbing” that he planned a three-month overseas trip while claiming he could not afford maintenance.
Rule 43 not an appeal mechanism
The judgment emphasised that Rule 43(6) is narrow in scope. It allows variation only where there has been a material change in circumstances, not a rehearing or appeal of an earlier order. The court was clear that the husband had not met this threshold. “I am not convinced that the Applicant has succeeded in demonstrating any material changes,” Judge Makume held.
The judge also remarked that the litigation had dragged on for nearly a decade, with repeated applications but no final resolution of the divorce. Both parties, the court said, appeared to be concealing aspects of their wealth, prolonging the dispute unnecessarily.
The judgment urged serious consideration of case management and mediation to finally end the fight.
Outcome
The application to vary the maintenance order was dismissed in full. The husband must continue paying maintenance and the legal cost contribution, and he must also cover his wife’s legal costs for this failed application.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
