A husband discovered the hard way that he couldn’t simply kick his wife who he is divorcing, out of the house and expect her to financially take care of herself because she is a housewife.
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, ordered the husband to pay maintenance to his wife until she found a job.
Acting Judge JA Kok noted that in a traditional marriage, the male partner earned an income by doing paid work while the female partner performed unpaid domestic work - running the household and caring for the children.
“ By earning an income, the male partner is able to financially maintain his female partner and children, and to maintain or acquire assets. But for his female partner's contribution he would have had to perform these domestic duties, leaving less time to work and advance in his paid career, or he would have to employ someone to clean his house and make his food, leaving him with less income,” the judge said.
The judge’s words were prompted by an application by the husband for an order of divorce without maintenance to the wife. Regarding maintenance, he agreed to pay towards their daughter’s keep until she turned 18, but refused to pay anything to his wife.
The couple were married in 2007 out of community of property and with the exclusion of the accrual system. The wife has been unemployed since 2012. Throughout the duration of the marriage the husband financially cared for her and their child.
The wife explained that she had to remain at home as a housewife and mother to take care of things, so that her husband could work full-time. The husband, on the other hand, said the agreement was that when the child turned two, his wife would find a job.
The wife, in denying this, said their child did not do well academically and needed her mother to be at home for her. She further argued that she had made life easier for the husband by cooking and cleaning the house. She also saved him money by staying at home, so he did not have to employ a cleaner.
But the husband testified that he needed to take his own washing to a laundromat since around 2015, because the wife refused to do his washing. He also testified that she had never packed a work lunch for him, and only cooked about twice a week.
According to him, his room ( they stayed in separate rooms) was never cleaned and he would come home after work to an unclean house.
The wife testified that she was 51 years-old and had only worked for a short period in 2012. Since she had no qualifications and had been out of the work environment for years, her prospects of finding a job were slim.
When she fell pregnant, she and her husband had agreed that she would be a stay at home mother and take care of the household. She said her husband did not impose a time limit on when she had to return to work, and had agreed to pay for her and the child’s needs.
The wife told the court that she had no source of income and was financially dependent on her husband. She further testified that she, together with the child, were instructed by the husband to vacate the matrimonial home by the end of December 2022, but was unable to do so, as they had nowhere to go.
According to her, throughout their marriage she was required to take care of the household and the child whilst the husband was free to pursue his career and work very long hours.
The husband, on the other hand, said the wife’s refusal to work caused him financial difficulties.
While he did own three properties, he said, the wife failed to show how any of her contributions at the marital home contributed towards enabling him to afford them, and how by not working, she saved them expenses. He claimed that, on the contrary, she had caused his estate to decline.
But Judge Kok said the wife did set out the facts as to her contribution, as that which was expected in a traditional marriage. The judge added that if it was not for her motherly and household duties, the husband would have had to incur expenses such as paying for a cleaner.
The husband was ordered to pay his wife R10 000 a month for a year - ending in August next year, to allow her time to find a job. This was in addition to his financial contribution towards the child. He also had to transfer ownership of their matrimonial home into the wife’s name.
Pretoria News