A man who wanted his estranged wife to walk away from their marriage with nothing because she could not have children, lost his appeal at the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane.
The parties were married to each other in community of property in October 2014.
When their marriage hit rock bottom sometime in 2022, the wife moved out of their house and subsequently filed for divorce in the Regional Court in Mahwelereng.
In her application, she sought an equal division of the joint estate.
In his reply, the husband refused claiming that the wife never contributed financially to the marriage and regarded him as a financial source.
He added that when she entered the marriage, she concealed the fact that she could not conceive.
She also denied him conjugal rights and departed from their home to pursue illicit affairs.
He held her responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.
The Regional Court ruled against the husband and ordered a division of the joint estate.
Wretched from the decision, the husband approached the High Court on appeal and raised the same arguments he previously raised in the Regional Court.
In her reply, the wife said she contributed financially when she was employed and brought assets into the marriage. She also performed household duties and supported the husband in his business endeavours.
She said she did not deny her husband conjugal rights. She said he had erectile dysfunction and despite his sexual performance issues, she stayed and supported him.
She added that she was not aware that she was infertile
Moreover, she explained that she moved out to protect her mental health after the husband and changed the locks and locked her out.
Looking at the evidence, acting Judge Nathi Gaisa said both parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage through dishonesty.
Gaisa said the husband concealed his erectile issues and the wife concealed her infertility issues.
“Their sexual incompatibility and lack of children appear to be the main causes of discord,” he said.
The judge said he was not satisfied with evidence presented by the husband to grant a forfeiture of benefits against the wife.
“While the respondent (wife) may benefit financially from an equal division, this benefit is not undue in the circumstances of this case...The traditional role of a housewife and homemaker should not be undervalued simply because it cannot be quantified in monetary terms,” he said.
He said the husband’s argument that the wife regarded him as a financial resource is not supported by evidence because instead of filing for divorce, he stayed in the marriage and waited for the wife to file for divorce.
“This suggests that he was content to continue the marriage despite the alleged financial imbalance, which undermines his argument for forfeiture on these grounds.”
Regarding allegations that the wife left their home to pursue illicit affairs, the judge found that there was insufficient evidence to back up this claim.
The judge said the wife’s explanation of leaving their home to protect her mental health after being locked out by the husband, was consistent with the overall picture of a deteriorating marriage marked by sexual incompatibility and communication breakdown.
Judge Gaisa dismissed the appeal and ordered each party to pay their own costs of the appeal.
IOL News