Hubby's cheating backfires as court rules he's not entitled to wife's money
The wife, a nursing sister, said he was a two-timing cheat who slept with other women, and she was not giving him anything.
The couple, who cannot be identified as they were in the midst of divorce proceedings, were married seven years ago in community of property.
The woman was a widow at the time, and the new husband moved into the house she and her late husband had bought.
But soon, the wife said, she realised the marriage was a mistake because her husband was involved in affairs and used vile language towards her. “He is promiscuous and also had several other sexual relationships with various other women. He is extravagant and spends his money on these women,” the woman said.
She admitted that she withheld conjugal rights from him, but explained to the judge that given his promiscuity she did this for health reasons.
According to the woman, her husband would come home at all hours and refused to explain his whereabouts.
To make matters worse, she said, he bought his girlfriends expensive clothes and he entertained them at expensive restaurants, she said.
“Apart from a ring and a watch, he never bought me any gifts.
"He didn’t lift a finger to assist with the upkeep of the house, apart from widening the gate so that his caravan would fit through it” and he did not contribute to any of the household expenses except to buy dog food.
The man had complained that his wife no longer wore her wedding ring, but she said her finger got too fat so he had taken it to a jeweller to get it enlarged.
The man’s explanations for his carousing was that he was a businessman who owned a pub and ran catering businesses.
The women in his life, he said, were business partners or simply friends.
He said he had regarded himself as a good husband and he was thus entitled to half of his wife’s house and her pension in divorce.
Judge Daisy Molefe said the woman was a credible witness who worked for 25 years as a nurse.
She contributed during this time to her own pension, which amounted to about R2million. The judge concluded it would be wrong for the cheating husband to have a share in this.
It also appeared that he could not prove to the court that he had contributed anything substantial to the joint household, and given he had been unfaithful, he should not benefit from the estate.
She granted the divorce and ruled that the husband had forfeited patrimonial benefits arising out of the marriage in community of property, so he goes away with nothing.