Pretoria- A man who left his wife and child over 17 years ago, has lost out on his portion of his wife’s state pension, their house and all of which formed part of their joint estate as he never maintained their child and also failed to contribute towards the household when they were still together.
The couple got married in community of property in 1999 and in 2004, the husband left his wife and their child.
In March 2021, the wife, who works as a nurse, turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to obtain a divorce decree. As they were married in community of property, she also asked the court not to give the husband a share of the house, furniture, her pension fund and Mercedes-Benz.
She said over the last couple of years, she resigned from her job more than twice, this allowed her to pay off the house and other debts. She went back again in 2020, and as it is, her pension fund is a little over R200 000.
She further added that she bought the house two years before she got married and was the only one paying for the bond. She said she also bought her car in 2017, 17 years after they had separated.
In his defence, the ex-husband said he left his wife because his life was under threat. He said he tried to reprimand his wife during an argument and she called her family members who attempted to assault him and chased him in the house.
He said he returned a few months later but was forced to leave once more when the same circumstances played out again and he fled because he feared they would kill him.
His version is that he did support his wife and their child during their marriage, he said he bought groceries and furniture.
However, he conceded that once he left the common home, he paid no maintenance to the child, did not contribute towards the bond, the utilities, maintenance or upkeep of the home or make any financial contribution.
After listening to both arguments, judge Brenda Neukircher said the husband’s version that he bought furniture cannot be accepted as he produced no evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim.
Neukircher said the wife’s evidence that the husband contributed more or less R200 on small groceries, was more likely.
“Given the fact that he neither led nor provided any documentary evidence to demonstrate that he worked in the 23 ½ years, what work he did or what his earnings were, I find his version improbable,” she said.
Neukircher said she believed that the marriage broke down as a result of the husband’s conduct and it would be unfair to grant an order in his favour.
IOL