Pretoria - A former husband who turned to court to stop paying his former wife maintenance, as he claimed she made up to R153 000 a month working as an escort, lost his legal bid.
The man, identified as “Mr VW” in a judgment the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, issued, said she was able to financially look after herself. He based this on a private investigator’s findings and an internet advert where she had offered her services.
While it was not in dispute that the woman was an escort, she denied making that much money. She said she made only “a few thousand” a month.
The court earlier suspended the maintenance payment, following an application in this regard by the husband, pending the former wife submitting her financial statements to the court so that the judge could assess it.
Judge Stuart Wilson, after looking at the wife’s financial position, lifted the suspension of the order and the husband had to continue paying monthly maintenance to her.
From the outset, Mr VW’s case has been that Mrs VW was no longer in need of the maintenance provided for in an earlier order, because she was working as an escort, earning between R88 000 and R153 000 a month.
Counsel for the husband asked the court to reject Mrs VW’s version that she was making far less and to accept the husband’s calculations as undisputed.
“I am not inclined to do this, primarily because Mr VW’s case was reliant, in large part, on inferences drawn from a private investigator’s report that had not been confirmed under oath. This was unsteady ground on which to make a finding.”
The judge added that he was also reluctant to make an order that would result in undue financial hardship for Mrs VW, especially as it could harm the prospect of her being able to strengthen her relationship with their minor child.
He said the wife’s financial disclosures to the court provided no indication that she earned a regular or substantial income from being an escort, or from any source other than Mr VW’s maintenance payments.
While the husband had no evidence of his wife’s “supplementary income”, he relied on the private investigator’s report to press a series of inferences that Mrs VW was being dishonest about her income, and that she was hiding additional bank accounts and sources of income from the court.
Judge Wilson said that although that might be true, Mr VW’s case was speculative and unsupported by any direct evidence placed under oath.
In order to succeed in being relieved of his maintenance obligations, Mr VW had to allege and prove, on a balance of probabilities, a material change in her circumstances, in the form of a substantially increased income.
“When read in light of Mrs VW’s financial disclosures, Mr VW’s case, the evidentiary foundation of which was never expanded beyond the private investigator’s report and the internet advertisements, ultimately falls short of that standard,” the judge said.
The husband also asked the court to order his wife to return the car he gave her under their divorce settlement. The judge refused this.
Pretoria News