Full Disclosure Failure: Court Dismisses Wife’s R130k Maintenance Claim in High-Profile Divorce

In a stern ruling that underscores the absolute requirement for honesty in divorce proceedings, the South Gauteng High Court has dismissed a woman’s urgent application for R130,000 in monthly interim maintenance, finding she deliberately concealed her financial position and inflated her expenses. The court not only rejected her claim but ordered her to pay her estranged husband’s legal costs.

The wife had brought a Rule 43 applicationa mechanism for urgent interim relief during divorceseeking R20,000 in child maintenance, R30,000 in spousal support, and an R80,000 contribution to her legal fees. She argued she had left her career at her husband’s request to raise their two children, now aged nine and four, and was financially dependent.

A Pattern of “Misleading” Non-Disclosure

However, Acting Judge Themba Khaba found her narrative lacked crucial candour. The husband presented evidence that he was already paying nearly R38,000 per month for her and the children’s expenses, covering school fees, medical aid, and direct cash transferscontributions the wife had significantly understated in her application.

“The applicant pleaded being indigent but failed to take the court fully into her confidence,” the judgment stated. Judge Khaba emphasised that Rule 43 demands the “utmost good faith,” and misleading the court can justify denying relief entirely. The wife’s exaggeration of expenses and failure to fully disclose existing support proved “fatal to her claim.”

Children’s Arrangements Sent for Investigation

The court also dealt with the father’s counter-application for increased contact. While some additional overnight visits were discussed, Judge Khaba declined to alter the current primary residence arrangement with the mother, citing insufficient evidence. Instead, the matter was referred to the Office of the Family Advocate for a full, neutral investigation into what serves the best interests of the children.

Costs Order Adds Sting to Dismissal

In a final blow, the court dismissed the wife’s request for a legal cost contribution, finding she failed to prove a clear need or her husband’s ability to pay the sum claimed. It then ordered her to cover the husband’s legal costs for the failed application.

The ruling is a powerful reminder that courts view the divorce process as one requiring transparent disclosure from both parties. With the interim application dismissed, the full divorce action continues, and the Family Advocate’s report will now play a pivotal role in shaping the final outcome for this fractured family.