A housewife wife turned to court for an order that her divorcing husband has to pay her at least R257 000 maintenance pending the divorce, as her skin care, make-up and perfume alone costs her more than R52 600 a month.
The woman said her husband, a chief financial officer at a major metropolitan municipality, was a wealthy man with a fleet of cars, which include various Porsches – the one a turbo worth about R6 million.
She claimed he gifted her a Range Rover Lumma as a “sorry gift” during their marriage, for “fathering another child”. Thus, the wife told the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, she was used to the high life and she had no plans to change this lifestyle.
In addressing the allegations by the applicant that she was a housewife and the husband a CFO at a municipality, Acting Judge S Liebenberg commented: “It beggars belief that a young couple such as the parties to this application, was able to amass the wealth described in the affidavits.”
It is claimed by them that the majority of assets are held in two trusts – a family trust, which was registered in 2016, and a business trust registered in 2021.
Judge Liebenberg further noted that by all accounts, the parties enjoyed and continued to enjoy a lifestyle far beyond that of “ordinary” people.
In December last year, the wife acquired a Maserati Levante at a discounted purchase price of R2.2m, the majority of which she financed, the court was told.
The admitted to owning four of the vehicles, but the supercars, he explains, were registered in the name of a third party, whose identity he did not disclose.
The court was further told that a family trust was the owner of no fewer than 10 immovable properties with a combined value of in excess of R36m.
It was said that the former matrimonial home, where the wife and the couple’s 12-year-old son live, was worth about R9.5m. The husband’s residence is in a home in Bryanston, which was acquired by way of a building package of R15m and further improved.
The acquisition and renovations were funded in cash.
Several other properties were also listed and it was said both the husband and wife received rental income from these.
The husband, who appears to be the controlling mind of each of the trusts, contends that the affairs of the trusts are irrelevant to this application, and did not issue the court with annual financial statements, or bank statements relating to the two trusts.
“The respondent’s stance on the relevancy of the trusts is not only patently incorrect, but smacks of a spouse who seeks to subscribe to the ‘catch me if you can’ litigation strategy,” the judge commented.
She said without full and frank disclosure of all material facts, a court was hamstrung in making a determination of what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case before it.
“Regrettably, both the applicant and the respondent herein have been less than honest. Had it not been for the young child, I would have been mindful to dismiss the application.
In a bid to prove her monthly financial needs to the court, the wife issued the judge with a list of her needs.
Her monthly instalments and insurance of the Maserati vehicle are nearly R45 000 per month, while her lunch and entertainment bill was around R16 000 per month. This was apart from the R15 000 per month she needed for holidays.
Judge Liebenberg said she was satisfied that the parties had enjoyed a standard of life far higher than most citizens of this country. But the wife would have to tighten the belt slightly, as the judge only ordered the husband to pay the wife R67 000 a month for now.
He, however, will continue to pay all the wife’s expenses such as property levies, insurance and garden and housekeeper’s expenses.
Pretoria News