On February 28 2019, the CC loaned an amount of R384,590 to the respondent. That amount was reduced during the period March 1 2019 to February 29 2020 to R107,322.
The CC’s cashflow statement showed that the loan to the respondent decreased with R277,268.
Again, the inference, in the absence of an explanation from the respondent, was that during the financial year March 1 2019 to February 29 2020, the respondent had the ability to pay R277,268 to the CC instead of honouring his maintenance obligations.
In addition, the CC’s financial statements showed that the CC paid a salary of R90,001 to the respondent.
This was in direct contrast with the respondent’s version that he only received a salary from the trust. The court concluded that “the information contained in the financial statements of the trust and the CC, stands in direct contrast with the respondent’s pleaded poverty case”.
The respondent was therefore found in contempt of the maintenance order. He was ordered to pay a fine of R50,000 to the registrar of the court within 90 days of the date of the order.
Lastly, he was sentenced to direct imprisonment for a period of six months, wholly suspended for a period of three years, subject to him paying the R50,000 fine to the registrar and R268,635 for arrears maintenance to the applicant within 60 days from the date of the order.
Ex-husband fined R50,000 and direct imprisonment for failure to comply with maintenance order
Image: 123RF/LUKAS GOJDA
The Free State High Court in Bloemfontein has ordered an ex-husband (respondent) to pay a fine of R50,000 to the registrar of the court within 90 days of the date of the order.
In addition, he was sentenced to direct imprisonment for a period of six months, wholly suspended for a period of three years, subject to him paying the R50,000 fine and that he pays his ex-wife (applicant) the outstanding maintenance obligations of R268,635 within 60 days of the order.
The parties were married, and from their marriage two minor daughters were born.
The marriage subsequently ended in divorce in 2017 and the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In terms of the settlement, the parties agreed that the primary residence of the minor children be awarded to the applicant and the respondent had a right of contact with the children.
The respondent also agreed to pay maintenance of R4,000 per month per child to the applicant plus reasonable medical, dental and ophthalmological costs, school fees and reasonable extramural activities of the minor children.
Due to non-compliance with his maintenance obligations, the applicant launched an application for contempt of a court order.
In her papers, she alleged that the respondent was in arrears with maintenance payments to the tune of R268,635.
The respondent admitted that he was in arrears with his maintenance obligations but denied that his actions were both wilful and in bad faith.
Court rules married man’s girlfriend cannot claim from his estate
His defence for failure to pay maintenance was one of poverty. He argued that due to his dire financial position, he was only able to afford maintenance of R3,000 per month in respect of both minor children.
He explained that he earns a salary of R6,000 per month from a trust, of which R3,000 goes towards the maintenance of both the minor children.
In addition, it costs him approximately R4,000 per fortnight in travelling and accommodation costs to see the minor children.
He further explained that his personal finances are tied up to the business of a trust and that his inability to comply with the maintenance order was therefore the financial deterioration of the trust.
However, the financial statements of the trust told a different tale. The statements showed that as of February 28 2019, the respondent loaned the trust an amount of R1.85m.
The inference, in the absence of an explanation from the respondent, was that during the financial year March 1 2019 to February 29 2020, i.e. the period when he voluntarily decided not to honour his maintenance obligations, the trust paid R199,992 to the respondent to reduce its loan account.
The respondent did not provide an explanation for this. Further, the respondent also provided financial statements for a close corporation (CC).
Customary law wife interdicts late husband's children from selling house
On February 28 2019, the CC loaned an amount of R384,590 to the respondent. That amount was reduced during the period March 1 2019 to February 29 2020 to R107,322.
The CC’s cashflow statement showed that the loan to the respondent decreased with R277,268.
Again, the inference, in the absence of an explanation from the respondent, was that during the financial year March 1 2019 to February 29 2020, the respondent had the ability to pay R277,268 to the CC instead of honouring his maintenance obligations.
In addition, the CC’s financial statements showed that the CC paid a salary of R90,001 to the respondent.
This was in direct contrast with the respondent’s version that he only received a salary from the trust. The court concluded that “the information contained in the financial statements of the trust and the CC, stands in direct contrast with the respondent’s pleaded poverty case”.
The respondent was therefore found in contempt of the maintenance order. He was ordered to pay a fine of R50,000 to the registrar of the court within 90 days of the date of the order.
Lastly, he was sentenced to direct imprisonment for a period of six months, wholly suspended for a period of three years, subject to him paying the R50,000 fine to the registrar and R268,635 for arrears maintenance to the applicant within 60 days from the date of the order.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos