A man embroiled in divorce proceedings with his now estranged wife has discovered the hard way that past sins do catch up, as his infidelity and the fact that he had fathered two children behind his wife’s back have cost him the benefits he would have otherwise shared arising from the marriage in community of property.
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, ordered in favour of the wife that their matrimonial home will now be registered in her name and that he will not benefit from half of its proceeds.
He will also lose his half portion of her pension benefits, and the family car will now solely belong to her.
The wife turned to court, where she complained bitterly about the husband’s conduct and asked for the forfeiture of the benefits arising from their marriage in community of property on the basis that, among others, he has committed adultery.
The court was told that while he was never a model husband, the fact that he committed adultery was the straw that broke the camel’s back. According to the testimony of the wife, this is the main reason she wanted to divorce him.
The husband has admitted that he committed adultery.
The wife said he had affairs from which two children were born. These children stay in Mpumalanga with their mothers.
Various intervention methods were employed, all aimed at saving the parties’ marriage relationship, but all in vain. The wife said she had enough and wants a divorce.
She told the court that her husband does not pay school fees for their three children, despite an agreement between the parties that he would. The defendant admits that he does not pay anything towards the children’s school fees. He simply said he has not money to do so.
But according to the wife, he runs a business selling petrol. “He operates like a tank station from home,” she said and issued the court with pictures of petrol contained in 20-litre containers. But the husband claimed the containers contained oil.
The wife further complained that he does not pay any municipal accounts as agreed. Consequently, the parties owe the Tshwane Municipality R94,000. She said he also does not pay for anything in the house, and his excuse is always that he does not have money.
But, she said, he runs an aluminium products manufacturing business from their home. She finds it impossible that despite that business, he is unable to pay for anything in the house. The husband cannot even pay for the electricity that he uses at the house to run his business. It is she who pays for the electricity, the woman said.
Judge Peter Mabuse said that even if the husband, on his version, is not employed, he can generate income from the two businesses he conducts. He can devise means to make money. “In the circumstances, he should be able to support his family with the money he generates. If he complains that he does not make any money in his two businesses, my view is that he must put more effort into his businesses, well knowing that he is obliged to support his family,” the judge said.
The wife also complained that the husband was earlier fired from home affairs where he worked and he received R172,000 from his pension fund, which he blew all on himself.
The husband said he used it to renovate the kitchen, but the wife said the kitchen is still incompletely renovated. She also complained that he bought his mother a car without telling her. She found the documents on the kitchen table by coincidence.
Judge Mabuse remarked that the lessons from previous case law dealing with these types of matters are that adultery, although a common ground in divorce proceedings, is still regarded as an essential requirement for the termination of the marriage. Secondly, he said, it is easy to grant forfeiture when the parties have been married for a long time.
Judge Mabuse said the wife’s evidence shows that the husband does as he pleases in the family. “He does things behind his wife's back. He cares less for the family. While the plaintiff tries her best to pay the house debts, he chose to buy his mother a motor vehicle.”
In granting the forfeiture order, the judge explained that forfeiture meant the benefits of the marriage and not the guilty party’s share of the community. “It is the extent to which the guilty party is enriched that is ‘the benefit’ that he or she may forfeit,” he said.
Pretoria News