A woman who, according to her now ex-husband, enjoyed excellent cars and fashionable clothing lost her half of their marital home, as well as her share of his pension money, all because she abandoned him 11 years ago to care for their three children.
Her youngest child was two years old at the time, and her husband testified at the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria that she had never cared to check on the children until recently.
He went to court, requesting a divorce as well as an order that she surrender her marriage benefits.
In response, the wife filed a counter-application, claiming she was entitled to half of the house and a pension because she had been a decent wife throughout the period she had lived with her husband.
The wife reminded him that she had given him three children as a gift.
In the preamble to his judgment, Acting Judge J P Phooko stated: “Marriage is an institution that lovers decide to enter into for a variety of reasons, including starting a family and raising children together.”
“What is mine is yours in certain marriage regimes, and vice versa.” Prior to the conclusion of a civil marriage, the parties have the option of identifying a marital regime that will best serve and safeguard their particular interests.”
As a result, a marriage may be in community of property, in community of property with accrual, or in community of property without accrual.
This is a divorce case in which the parties married in community of property.
However, the husband, a traffic cop, claimed that if his wife, a police officer, received half of everything, she would unfairly gain.
The couple married 22 years ago, but the wife fled the family home in 2012, leaving the children behind.
The husband recently filed for divorce on the grounds that the wife, among other things, had multiple extramarital encounters.
Furthermore, he claimed that during their time together, she did not contribute to the upkeep and repair of the common home, the repayment of the mortgage bond, rates, and taxes, or the rearing of their children.
The woman, on the other hand, said her husband was abusive to her and had threatened to murder her at one point.
As a result, she left the common house for her own safety. Her spouse, she claimed, refused her access to the property and prevented her from seeing the children. She held firm, claiming that domestic responsibilities were shared between them and that her lack of them was due to circumstances beyond her control.
She also accused her spouse of having extramarital encounters throughout their marriage.
Meanwhile, her husband testified that she had an affair with one of his colleagues at one point. He claimed he observed her automobile outside the man’s house and she admitted to the affair.
He claimed that while they were married, he did the majority of the housework and paid for everything. He stated that the woman was into fashion and enjoyed expensive clothes as well as excellent cars.
He claimed she switched from their Edgars family apparel account to a Woolworths account. She’d buy things on credit and then fail to pay them off, forcing him to bail her out.
The wife testified that they were married in community of property and that she owns half of everything.
Furthermore, she claimed that she contributed to the marriage by bearing three children for him, putting her life in danger.
The judge noticed that the woman was regarded as having a strong sense of fashion, spending money on brand clothes and frequently purchasing a new car. When she fell behind on her payments, her husband bailed her out.
While the husband claimed to have paid for everything in the house, the wife stated that she, too, contributed financially to the household. She claimed that she used to buy food and KFC, as well as drapes and a television stand.
While the judge did not remark on the couple’s alleged escapades, he did think that the husband was a good parent who cared for his children throughout the 11 years his wife had left him.
“Also, despite the fact that they both worked outside the home, he cooked, bathed the children, drove them to school, and washed all their clothes during their marriage.” “For the majority of their time together, he was the primary financial provider in the home and the primary caregiver to the children,” the judge stated.
He came to the conclusion that the woman had to give up her portion of the house and her husband’s pension fund.
The judge stated that she had not brought anything into the marriage in the first place.