The court has dismissed a man’s attempt to dodge a R20,000 spousal maintenance order after he could not explain questionable cash flows in his bank account.
The man had approached the high court in Johannesburg seeking relief from a spousal maintenance order and a contribution towards his ex-wife’s legal costs.
The man was required to pay R20,000 per month in spousal maintenance and contribute R150,000, payable in 15 instalments, towards his wife’s legal fees.
However, he told the court that he simply did not have the necessary funds and that his business had taken a severe financial knock since the order was issued in November 2024.
In addition to the financial obligations, the man was also required to allow his wife to remain in the matrimonial home rent-free and to provide her with a car.
However, despite the man’s claims of financial ruin and a chronic illness requiring overseas treatment, the judge found inconsistencies in his financial disclosures and said he had access to significant credit.
TINA HOKWANA | Spousal maintenance stopped as wife’s extra income hidden
After falling into arrears, the maintenance arrangement was restructured in August 2025, allowing the man to settle outstanding amounts in instalments and temporarily reducing his monthly maintenance obligations – an order he complied with.
Johannesburg high court Judge Motsamai Makume, who wrote the judgement, said this was the third or fourth application involving the parties.
“The first such application and order having been granted in November 2016, whereafter the parties reconciled for a short period,” he said.
Makume said the matter was being litigated on grounds where it had become difficult to determine who was telling the truth.
“I say this judging by what appears from their disclosed financial records. On the one hand, the applicant... says that he and his wife, the respondent, personally and jointly own several companies and immovable properties.
“Despite this revelation, he still maintains that he does not possess necessary funds to maintain the respondent.”
The man had told the court that his salary from one of the companies was about R46,000.
The judge said the man’s bank transactions were difficult to understand, due to the unexplained items of income as well as payments and withdrawals, “which leaves one confused as to what those transactions are for”.
Makume also pointed out that the man had access to a credit card with a limit of R125,000, questioning how it was serviced on a salary of about R46,000.
“The statement does not indicate what he uses this money for,” the judge said.
The court also heard that the man’s three-month payslip reflected fluctuating income.
Makume said the man had stated in his application that the figures he provided were estimates rather than actual amounts.
“It is in my view not sufficient to enable this court to put any reliance on the applicant’s version.”
The man also told the court that due to his chronic kidney disease, he consults medical practitioners in India and travels there occasionally for treatment.
“The applicant does not prove that there are no kidney specialists in South Africa who treat such ailments. There is in my view no basis to allow those expenses.
ALSO READ| A job and a trust fund: Husband must pay R200,000 a month maintenance pending divorce deal
“It is also disturbing to know that the applicant says he needs to pay for an overseas trip lasting three months from 15 December 2025 to 20 March 2026. The question is, where will he be getting the income to fund such a trip?”
In opposing the application, his wife argued that the man had failed to disclose all his financial interests.
Makume said he was not convinced that the man had demonstrated any material change in circumstances that would justify setting aside the earlier maintenance order.
“In this matter, it is the parties themselves who have since 2016 been at loggerheads and not brought a matter to finality. The marriage has broken down and should be dissolved.
“There are no minor children involved; as a result, no issues about children are withholding finalisation. It is the hidden wealth of the parties, which is a stumbling block, and for that, both are to blame,” the judge said.
The man’s application was dismissed.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.