Wife's extravagant lifestyle under scrutiny in divorce court ruling

An elderly woman who is in the process of divorcing her husband has been advised by the court to tighten her belt, as she can no longer maintain the lavish lifestyle she has grown accustomed to since their separation.

In her quest for financial support, she turned to the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, seeking an increase in the monthly maintenance her husband is currently providing her during the divorce proceedings.

Apart from the nearly R54,000 a month she is demanding from him, she also insisted that he pay all her other expenses, such as her gym membership and furnishing her new home.

The husband said his company mostly paid for her luxuries in the past, but the now cash-strapped company had been sold, and the money had dried up.

He suggested that the wife curb her expenses and tone down her lavish spending, which the court agreed with.

The applicant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married to each other in community of property in 2012, but the wife instituted divorce proceedings last year. Both are in their late 60s.

The wife asked for an order forcing her husband to pay her R53,800 per month, and that, additionally, he should continue to pay all her direct expenses. These included R6,800 a month for the domestic worker, the wife’s medical aid premiums, her car’s premiums and maintenance, as well as her gym membership.

Apart from this, she wants him to pay for the monthly lease of a townhouse selected by her, as well as a one-off contribution towards appliances and related household items to furnish her home in the sum of R193,000.

Finally, she wants R1 million from him towards her legal costs in the divorce proceedings.

The respondent contends that he does not have the means to pay the exorbitant amounts claimed from him by the applicant, who, according to the respondent, is living beyond her means.

The applicant, so the respondent contends, is insisting on a lifestyle that was sustained by his company, which in recent times had fallen on hard times, making it necessary for them, as a family, to tighten the proverbial belt.

The respondent tendered a cash payment of R28,700 per month, to include the applicant’s Audi A3 instalment and its maintenance limited to R4,000 per month. He also agrees to pay for the domestic worker as well as to pay the R1,500 a month towards her gym membership.

The claim by the applicant for payment of R193,000 for household accessories is also rejected by the respondent, who made it clear he also cannot afford to pay for her monthly rental.

Judge Leicester Adams, in taking a close look at the husband’s income, said it is clear the husband cannot afford all these expenses.

“He contends that the applicant is living a lifestyle that he cannot maintain. I find myself in agreement with these contentions on behalf of the respondent,” he said.

The judge turned down most of the wife’s demands and ordered the husband to pay her R35,000 per month maintenance and R100,000 contribution towards her legal costs.

Cape Argus