A bitter husband who said his wife only married him so that he could take care of her and for him to get her out of her premarital debt, turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, for an order that she forfeit her portion of their joint estate because they were married in community of property.
The husband told Judge Brad Wanless that the marriage was doomed from the start as their problems started on their wedding night. He said his wife made it clear from the beginning that she did not love him. She also stated this in her personal diary, he said.
According to the husband, he showered her with gifts before and shortly after the marriage, but he soon fell into debt due to the fact that she did not want to work and spent his hard-earned money on luxuries and non-necessities.
The unhappy husband said that once his money dried up, she took their two children and left the house.
He told the court that if they remained married, he would likely remain the primary and sole breadwinner in their relationship. Obligations such as medical aid, housing, travel, fuel, food, clothing and entertainment would all be borne by him, and these would become “burdensome if not unbearable”.
The husband added that given the high number of divorces primarily due to financial reasons, he pleaded with his wife-to-be before their marriage to request her family to reduce the amount of lobola as he did not want to “place a financial strain on their union or commence the marriage in debt”.
He complained that he, however, had to pay for most of the wedding expenses.
Further complaints by him included that his wife, during their short-lived marriage of nearly four years, had abused him verbally and emotionally and that she “unreasonably” denied him conjugal rights.
The husband said soon after they had started living together he discovered her motive for marrying him – money. He said due to her quest to maintain her “unreasonable lifestyle” his credit cards were maxed to their limits.
According to him, his credit rating and score were now adversely affected and financial institutions considered him a risk and would not advance him any credit. Rather than tightening the belt, his wife chose to leave him, he said.
He testified that by his wife’s own admission, she never loved him from the inception of the marriage, and she told him that she was coerced into the marriage by her family, who were tired of her being a financial burden on them.
The husband said he dearly wanted her to work during their marriage and bought her data so that she could apply for jobs, but she was not interested.
He said before the commencement of divorce proceedings, she threatened him that she would divorce him and leave him impoverished “as the law was on her side when it came to divorce proceedings because they were married in community of property”.
The wife had a different story to tell and said he was the one who was emotionally and physically abusive towards her and this was the reason why she left him, taking their children with her.
She added that it was not a question of her not wanting to work, but rather that they had decided that she would take care of the children at home as they could not afford a helper.
Judge Wanless commented that while both parties, unsurprisingly, proffered different reasons for the breakdown of the marriage, it was, in fact, a common cause that the relationship was a disaster from the very beginning.
In referring to the fact that the problems started on their wedding night, the judge remarked, “It is indeed remarkable, not only that the marriage lasted for as long as it did, but produced two children there from.”
He said that based on the evidence, the parties should clearly never have become married to one another. But, the judge added, they are “certainly not the first (or last) couple to come to the realisation that, upon becoming married to one another, they are simply incompatible”.
The court found that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the wife to warrant her to forfeit her share of their estate, which includes his pension money. She will, however, forfeit three small properties belonging to him, which she said she was not interested in.
Pretoria News