Husband ordered to share his pension fund and two properties with cheating ex-wife in divorce settlement.
The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed the appeal of a former husband who refused to divide his pension fund, two homes, and furniture with his ex-wife after she cheated.
The couple had three children while they were married and were community property owners.
The wife worked as a general worker and received R2 500 every two weeks while the husband was a teacher and made about R34 000 each month.
After seven years of marriage, the wife filed for divorce in 2017, alleging that her husband was aggressive, frequently returned home after midnight, and had at least two extramarital affairs of which she was aware.
The ex-wife claimed that her treatment for depression was a result of her ex-actions. husband’s.
The husband responded by asserting that they had no real communication and that he had never experienced a happy marriage.
He said that in 2015, she mistakenly sent him a WhatsApp message expressing her love that was actually meant for her adulterous boyfriend.
The husband further stated that because all of the assets were gained as a consequence of his labor, his ex-wife never contributed in any significant way to the marriage. He therefore requested a court order for her to give up the advantages of the marriage.
The Regional Court disagreed and authorized the split of the joint estate.
Then he filed an appeal. In his new application, his attorney claimed that the Regional Court erred in finding that both parties shared equal responsibility for the marriage’s dissolution.
His attorney also contended that the breakdown should have been found to be the result of the wife’s infidelity as the significant wrongdoing.
Judge ML Twala disagreed, nevertheless. He discovered that the WhatsApp message had been discussed, the conflict had been settled, and the couple had moved forward with their marriage.
According to Judge Twala, the WhatsApp message was not the basis for the husband starting the divorce process, and his counterclaim only hinted at the existence of (extramarital) affairs on the part of the wife.
According to Twala, there are other considerations that must be taken into account while deciding whether to order the forfeiture of advantages resulting from a marriage in the community of property.
Twala added that the ex-wife had undisputed proof that her ex-pattern husband’s of returning home after midnight and sleeping outside on several weekends was what ultimately led to the dissolution of their marriage.
“I am therefore of the view that the court a quo (previous court) has not misdirected itself in finding that in the circumstances of this case both parties were to blame for the breakdown in the marriage relationship,” Twala said.