A Western Cape High Court judge has dismissed a woman's application for interim maintenance from her estranged husband, who earns about R34,000 monthly. The woman, whose business earns her almost R200,000 a month, had demanded R22,000 maintenance, including R12,000 for their two children and R10,000 for herself. Judge Daniel Thulare questioned her failure to fully disclose her finances, saying she had not taken the court into her confidence.
The husband had argued that his estranged wife's business income was substantially higher, leaving her with about R109,800 a month after business expenses. The court heard that the woman's business bank statements showed that her business received between R141,500 and R223,000 a month. After deducting business expenses, about R109,800 remained available to her monthly. The statements also showed that the business paid several of her personal and household expenses.
The woman had based her maintenance demand on the assumption that both children lived with her full-time, which was not the case. The couple had already agreed to a provisional parenting plan under which they shared care and contact. Their teenage son had been living with his father since August 2025, while the mother exercised contact with him. The parents shared care of their four-year-old daughter on an alternating two-two-three-day arrangement.
The husband had offered to continue paying R5,850 a month towards the daughter's expenses during the periods she stayed with her mother, while covering the son's living expenses in full. He also paid for the woman's and the children's medical aid. His payslips for June, July and August 2026 showed average gross earnings of R54,598.68 a month. His average net income was about R32,838, increasing to R35,574 when bonus payments were included.
Judge Thulare noted that changing family and financial dynamics meant women could also be the main earners in marriages, with significant income differences between spouses. He said Rule 43 applications had to be carefully considered to prevent either party from being placed at a severe financial disadvantage during divorce proceedings. The judge acknowledged that the woman's business income was irregular and seasonal.
However, Thulare said he was not persuaded that the woman had given the court a complete picture of her finances. He found no reason to change the existing arrangements for the children before the family advocate had investigated and provided an expert report on their care and contact. The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The matter was brought under Rule 43, which allows spouses going through divorce proceedings to seek interim financial and other relief while awaiting the finalisation of their divorce. The woman's business income and expenses were scrutinised by the court, with the judge finding that her version of events was not convincing. The court's decision was delivered on November 6.
Key points
- The court rejected the woman's bid for R22,000 maintenance due to her failure to disclose her true financial position.
- The woman's business earns her almost R200,000 a month, but she claimed she needed R22,000 maintenance from her estranged husband.
- The court's decision was based on the husband's plausible factual response to the woman's claims, and the existing arrangements for the children.
