Maintenance case blows up after wife accused of ‘exaggerating’ financial hardship

A woman’s attempt to secure increased maintenance for herself and her two young children imploded after it emerged that she had overstated her financial hardship and failed to come clean about her true financial position.

The ruling relates to a legal battle between S.J.J and her husband, M.M.J, who married in October 2012 and separated in December 2023, with their divorce pending.

S.J.J approached the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg seeking maintenance for herself and the couple’s two minor children — a nine-year-old son and a four-year-old daughter — along with a contribution towards her legal costs.

M.M.J opposed the application and filed a counterclaim seeking expanded contact and shared residency of the children, who currently live with their mother.

His existing contact arrangements allow him access every Thursday from 4:30pm to 6:30pm and on Saturdays from 9am to 5pm.

Claims of financial dependence

In her submissions, S.J.J told the court that she left her employment before the birth of their son following an agreement between the couple that she would resign from her job.

She said she had held a secure position with a competitive salary at the time and only resigned after receiving assurances from her husband that he would support the household and maintain their standard of living.

ALSO READ: Getting divorced? Why you need financial advice as well as legal advice

According to her evidence, M.M.J was the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage and paid the bond on their three-bedroom home, levies, utilities, Wi-Fi, solar costs, medical aid, school fees and other household expenses.

The wife further claimed that she left the marital home due to coercive control and financial abuse.

She is currently living in a two-bedroom unit owned by her grandmother and stated that she pays R12 000 per month on a loan account basis, although she can only afford R8 000 at present.

Wife seeks child and spousal maintenance

S.J.J disclosed that she earns R13 000 per month as an administrator at her husband’s company and an additional average income of R10 000 per month as a contractor trainee at Life Day Spa.

She alleged that M.M.J failed to provide sufficient support and had only paid her R1 000 in cash since their separation, forcing her to rely on her parents.

READ MORE: Getting divorced? This is how changes in law will affect property ownership

She asked the court to order child maintenance of R10 000 per child per month and argued that her husband could afford this, stating that he owns a 20% shareholding in the company where he works and earns R200 000 per month, including bonuses and benefits.

In addition, she sought interim spousal maintenance of R30 000 per month and a legal costs contribution of R80 000, saying her parents were currently covering her legal fees.

Husband rejects financial demands

M.M.J denied his wife’s version of events and accused her of deliberately misleading the court.

He told the court that he pays R14 100 directly to S.J.J and R24 658 towards expenses related to the children, amounting to a total monthly contribution of R37 758.

He stated that his net monthly income is R94 000 and denied that the children’s expenses exceed R20 000 per month, excluding costs he already covers.

According to him, the wife inflated her listed expenses and failed to submit documentary proof to support them.

He also disputed her claim of rental expenses, pointing out that no lease agreement had been produced.

READ MORE: ConCourt rules couple’s post-customary marriage antenuptial contract is invalid

M.M.J said the children remain on his medical aid and have savings allocated to cover medical needs.

He rejected his wife’s claim that she lacked work experience, stating that she had only been unemployed for six years and, given her education, age and skills, was capable of supporting herself.

The husband told the court that his wife worked during parts of the marriage, contributed financially to the household and paid for her own vehicle.

He claimed it was after the birth of their son that he assumed greater financial responsibility because she chose to be a stay-at-home mother.

M.M.J emphasised that he was unable to afford their lifestyle on his income alone and had to rely on debt to support the family.

High court ruling

Acting Judge Themba Khaba ruled that S.J.J had failed to approach the court honestly and transparently regarding her finances.

“The applicant exaggerated her expenses and understated the support that the respondent was providing to her and the children.

“This is dishonourable conduct which has no place in judicial proceedings,” the judgment reads.

The court also rejected her request for a contribution towards legal costs, finding that she failed to establish a proper basis for the claim.

As a result, the court dismissed the application with costs.

However, the judge ordered that matters concerning the care, contact and residency of the minor children be referred to the Office of the Family Advocate for further investigation.

NOW READ: Husbands can now legally adopt wives’ surnames in SA, ConCourt rules