Dec 9, 2022

Mawazo Writing Africa

Writing about the main

Husband who offered R2,000 hit with R70,000 monthly maintenance bill

A wealthy Gauteng businessman who has offered to pay his wife and minor child just R2,000 a month in alimony pending their divorce has been sentenced by the Johannesburg High Court to pay more than R70,000 a month instead to pay.

The mother, who filed the lawsuit in December, requested that her minor child’s primary residence, a contribution to her court costs, and other relief be awarded to her.

Her husband, he responded to her application a day before the court hearing, arguing that he was already offering “R2,000 a month for the child’s meals” two children – the eldest is now an adult. They lived in a family home owned by the mother, who worked throughout their marriage until she was diagnosed with cancer in 2017 and later quit. She underwent surgery to treat the cancer and had a long recovery time.

While the woman tried to start several businesses, she said her husband would get involved in running them. She ended up turning her last business over to him to run, only for it to fail because he didn’t get along with the staff.

The court filings detail how the woman allegedly suffered a long history of abuse, including intimidation and violence at the hands of her husband, who is said to have a controlling personality.

On one occasion, he allegedly pointed a gun at her child. She reported this to the police, but the file was “lost”. The husband also reportedly threatened to kill and set her on fire.


In November last year, the mother fled, fearing for her safety, when she said her husband was trying to attack her. She took few belongings, leaving her daughter behind and taking refuge at a relative’s house.

She applied for a cease and desist order from the Domestic Violence Court in November, according to the notice issued by the court, her return date is only this one Month. This prompted her to file a lawsuit in court in mid-December.

However, the husband’s legal team countered that the court did not issue a domestic violence injunction at her request because she failed to prove a prima facie case .

The couple had been unable to resolve their differences and reach an agreement.

The mother returned to the family home after her daughter informed her that the father had gone for another country and she was left with the household staff and her older brother.

Flamboyant lifestyle

The husband owns a farm in Egypt and travels to Egypt at least once year there. Evidence was that he left his daughter in the care of four employees: two bodyguards, a cook and a maid.

According to the evidence, the father has multiple sources of income. He earns R40,000 from his employer, he is a spiritual leader – described as a lucrative practice – earns additional income working with stockbrokers, owns a working farm in Egypt and receives rental income from properties he rents out there.

He owns two houses in Egypt, one on the Mediterranean Sea, and his real estate portfolio is estimated at around R25 million.

“Although the defendant has a bank account, he trades in cash and uses the bank account of the applicant to pay the costs through direct debit orders,” the court heard.

The court heard that the husband was a “regular gambler” and spent most weekends at the Gold Reef City casino. He was accompanied by his wife and children, and he presented them with R5,000 in cash for their hospitality.

He paid in cash for a Jeep for himself and a Toyota Fortuner for his wife. He spent considerable sums on designer clothes and an upscale lifestyle for the family, with the wife estimating her household budget at R85,000 a month.

The family enjoyed two foreign holidays a year and the children received every comfort and large sums of money for their holiday entertainment. However, this was countered by a volatile home environment.

The court found that in correspondence between his lawyers, the husband conceded that “given the temperamental and volatile nature of the relationship between the parties, it would not be the case advisable that the parties live together on the property.”

The mother applied to the court to order that the minor daughter live primarily with her and that her husband be ordered to continue the maintenance of the child’s school fees and expenses, in addition to her living expenses.

His attorney had argued that the family home was adequate housing for his wife, she required no maintenance and they had no reason to argue Case of hardship.

“I do not think … that the applicant has nothing to complain about. No mother who has dutifully fed her children for so long would readily abandon them to indulge herself. She has problems, the defendant admits. She needs to be housed and given the privacy she deserves,” the court found.

Share the loot, by court order

The court rejected the Businessman:

  • pays his wife 20,000 Rand a month for himself,
  • 15,000 Rand for her daughter,
  • 9,625 Rand a month for medical care allowance premiums for the whole family,
  • R7,495 per month for household expenses and
  • R15,000 for housing expenses.

The child’s The father must continue to pay his child’s school fees and all related expenses, including extracurricular expenses, school and sports clothing and tutoring.

The court also ordered the man to pay an additional fee of 10,000 Rand costs, and that the wife may keep her car, which should be serviced at his expense.

The minor child’s primary residence it will be with her mother and the husband will be granted regular visitation rights and telephone access to her.

The woman was instructed to “file for a divorce within 20 days of this order”.< /p>

Support independent journalism by subscribing to The Sunday Times. Only 20 R for the first month.