Divorcee’s bid for R54 000 per month increase dismissed

A DIVORCEE was dealt a major blow in the Western High Court when it dismissed her application to have her monthly maintenance increased from R71 000 to R125 000 – with no evidence of why the increase is needed.

The woman – whose name is withheld due to it being divorce action where three minor children are involved – further sought among other costs R56 000 to be paid to her legal counsel for each day the matter remains on trial. Legal costs would amount to R935000 for preparation and imminent pending divorce action.

The separated couple, who were married from 2009 to 2014 out of community of property, parted ways after the woman allegedly engaged in a “clandestine extramarital affair”.

In his judgment, Judge Derek Wille said the woman, who instituted divorce action in November 2014, initially sought R60 000 per month, in the form of cash maintenance for and on behalf of the children; an annual 10% escalation thereon, all the schooling and tertiary educational costs of the minor children (plus all the extras); the medical and dental costs of the minor children (plus all the extras not covered by medical aid); spousal maintenance of R40 000 per month to increase by 10% annually; the medical and dental costs of herself (plus all extras not covered by medical aid) and, finally, the reasonable costs of an overseas trip annually for the minor children and the plaintiff.

She also sought an order that the defendant transfer into her name the ownership of a Ferrari Alonso 599.

“The plaintiff now contends that her monthly expenses for her and her children amount to R103 775. Notably, this sum includes legal fees, support of her mother and beauty care in the sum of R5 000 per month. This amount is claimed for each of these items, per month. Notably, she also claims a bond repayment of R13000 per month, building expenses of R4000 per month and miscellaneous expenses of R9 300 per month.

“In addition to this the plaintiff is claiming R7500 per month to repay loans that she had incurred with family, friends and from some unnamed and unspecified financial institutions. The evidential material in support of these loans is glaringly absent from these papers and is inadequate. Most significantly, she claims large amounts of money from the defendant in order to support her mother. This, the plaintiff says, is because of an historical undertaking made to her by the defendant,” according to court documents.

Over the past seven years, the woman did not apply for an increase in maintenance and made no disclosure about how she had used the R71 000 per month, paid to her over the last seven years. This over and above the other payments made by the man to third parties on her and their minor children’s behalf, court documents stated.

“Having considered the plaintiff’s position carefully, I reject her argument that it demonstrates that any increase in interim maintenance for her and the minor children is justified. The court’s task has been made even more difficult by the following: I do not have any ‘evidence’ of the plaintiff’s budget apart from her table of her alleged expenses (while I accept that an interim budget is not necessary in every claim), it would in my view have been helpful to have some understanding of the evidential basis for the sums that she now seeks; her ‘evidence’ in terms of the actual expenses incurred by her is at best for her, confusing; she fails to put up any proof (at all) of the alleged loan amounts that she is repaying; the plaintiff seeks to support her brother and her mother from a portion of these now claimed increased maintenance payments; no explanation whatsoever is advanced by the plaintiff why she waited for almost seven years to apply for this increase and why this has been done on the eve of the trial,” said Judge Wille.