A husband has been successful in the Western Cape High Court in his bid to have his maintenance contribution to his ex-wife reduced, after his income had dropped.
The court found that the ex-wife could not prove he had other investments to supplement her case.
The parties were married by both Muslim rights and civil law.
However, the divorce (talaaq) was finalised and became official in April 2019.
On August 11, 2021, the husband instituted an application for the variation of his maintenance contribution.
The earlier order required him to pay R20 000 per month, and he wanted to amend this to R10 000.
He said that when the order was granted, his monthly salary was about R63 680 per month.
However, due to some adjustments at his workplace, his monthly income had been reduced to R53 817 per month.
The husband argued that while he had complied with this order most of the time, he suffered economic hardships.
Court papers read that at present, he was the sole breadwinner and was maintaining two households.
He has depleted discretionary funds that were set aside for other responsibilities. His ex-wife asserted that she was the sole primary caregiver of the parties’ children, and she found herself in financial peril as a housewife battling cancer.
In her denial of his financial situation and her argument that he was able to pay, she stated that he received a higher payment in December 2022 and was able to pay his arrears.
Adding to that, he paid R15 000 in legal fees to his attorneys per month, contributed about R10 881 per month to his retirement annuity, and had an investment to the value of about R6.5 million, she argued.
Judge Babalwa Mantame found: “Unfortunately, this court cannot be tasked with an obligation of considering unverified investment accounts in its decision. The applicant knew more than two years ago that there was a pending Rule 43 (6) application by the respondent.
Surely, the respondent’s affordability of the maintenance order is central to both proceedings. She did nothing to investigate the veracity of her allegations, or of his further sources of funds.
Perhaps the applicant was hoping that the respondent would respond to these allegations, but (he) elected not to do so. It is common cause that one who alleges must prove.
“In the absence of any proof to the contrary, I am satisfied that the respondent cannot afford to carry on contributing financially to the two households with the present income.
“The respondent’s contribution towards maintenance of R20 000 is varied and set aside.
“The respondent is ordered to contribute R15 000 to the applicant towards maintenance per month.
The contempt of court application is dismissed.”
Cape Times