ZELDA VENTER
zelda.venter@inl.co.za
An eye specialist who wanted to get out of his maintenance obligations towards his estranged wife, was blocked in this move by the court, who found that an inheritance is not a reason to stop paying maintenance as ordered by a court.
The ophthalmologist turned to the Eastern Cape High Court, sitting in East London, asking for an order that he may stop paying maintenance to his wife pending their divorce, as she had inherited R1.7 million from her deceased mother.
His wife - a housewife - earlier obtained a judgment against him that he had to pay her R10 000 a month and that he had to contribute R50 000 towards her legal costs in their pending divorce. He also had to maintain their children.
The R10 000 towards his wife was apart from the R15 748 a month “pocket money” which he paid her. But once he was ordered to pay the R10 000 maintenance a month, he stopped paying her pocket money.
That gave rise to the wife turning back to court where she asked that she receive both the maintenance amount and the pocket money. The wife told the court that she urgently needed her husband to pay her the money, as well as the arrears, as she was cash strapped.
The husband was then ordered to urgently pay her R41 496, so that she could make ends meet. He was also ordered to pay her R25 748 on or before the first working day of each and every consecutive month thereafter.
In the latest maintenance battle, the husband now asked the court to absolve him from maintenance, as it came to his knowledge that his wife had inherited R1 715 802. She failed to earlier disclose this information to the court, the husband said.
He reasoned that if the judge knew about this money, the court would have never instructed him to pay maintenance to his wife.
He argued that the wife no longer required maintenance after receipt of the inheritance and said his wife misled the court when she said she was cash strapped.
In dealing with the changed circumstances of the wife, the husband said she is unemployed, but she lives in a house for which he pays monthly.
She drives a vehicle which he pays for and he finances her overdraft. This, according to the husband, had to stop, as in his opinion she was now wealthy after she got the inheritance.
The wife, on the other hand, argued that the husband is an eye surgeon who has considerable wealth. She has not been employed for approximately 11 years as she was focusing on raising the children.
In response to the allegations about the sum of money she received, she admitted that she received R1 715 802 as inheritance from her late mother’s land claim which was instituted against the Land Claims Commission.
She said that she did not disclose the amount because it is irrelevant to the orders for maintenance pending the divorce.
The wife submitted that she cannot be required to use her inheritance to maintain herself while the husband has legal obligations towards her. The inheritance is her only valuable asset. To use it as maintenance would go against the legal principle of preserving inherited wealth. She contended that the inheritance is excluded from the joint estate as a matter of law.
The court said that there is no doubt that the wife requires maintenance. That need for maintenance was identified by the husband himself years ago when he provided her with a stipend on a monthly basis.
The obligation to pay her maintenance arose purely from the husband and wife relationship. It should not be conflated with inheritance, the court said.
It was pointed out by the court that during the divorce proceedings, it will have to be determined whether the inheritance forms part of the couple’s joint estate.
The court saw it was a flawed notion by the husband that the wife must deplete her inheritance to maintain herself pending the divorce.
But, the wife also did not escape liability for not mentioning the inheritance when she earlier urgently turned to court to say she was cash strapped and immediately needed money.
“By failing to disclose the inheritance payment the respondent’s conduct is deserving of censure,” the court said. It ordered that she had to pay half of the legal costs in the application.
Pretoria News