Husband freed from paying R10,000 spousal maintenance after court uncovers wife’s hidden income
Pending finalisation of the divorce, the wife launched a Rule 43 application where the husband was ordered to pay over R17, 000 for children’s maintenance and R10,000 towards spousal maintenance.Divorce. Picture: Karolina Grabowska/Pexels
A Johannesburg husband has been released from his obligation to pay R10,000 in spousal maintenance after presenting evidence in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg that his wife concealed her income.
The couple, married out of community of property with accrual, have two children together.
In May 2021, the wife initiated divorce proceedings, which are still awaiting final determination.
During this interim period, she filed a Rule 43 application, resulting in the husband being ordered to pay over R17,000 for children’s maintenance and R10,000 for spousal maintenance.
In August 2023, the husband challenged this arrangement in the high court, arguing his wife’s improved financial situation meant she could sustain herself.
He noted she was operating a business from home, suggesting that household expenses such as rent, electricity, and water should be partly allocated to her business.
The wife’s Financial Disclosure Form (FDF) acknowledged an income increase to about R15,000 after tax, up from the R10,000 declared during the Rule 43 application.
Despite this, she maintained that the increase was not materially significant.
However, the husband scrutinized her FDF and bank statements, revealing her average monthly income from January to August 2023 exceeded R34,000.
He disputed her claim that certain transactions were merely loan repayments.
Furthermore, it was revealed she had withdrawn R20,000 from a business account in 2022, unreported in her Rule 43 application.
Additionally, the wife ran a business advertised on Facebook, offering a course at R4,350 per person, attended by at least 37 individuals from May 2022 to April 2023.
She also earned over R550 monthly from another business, OCL Rental, which she omitted, later claiming it was an error.
Judge Portia Nkutha-Nkontwana concluded that the wife had not been fully transparent with the court.
As a result, the husband is no longer required to pay spousal maintenance, though he will continue supporting their children.
