Husband cheats on wife's best friend, wife then demands R100,000 maintenance
An Umhlanga surgeon has found himself entangled in a legal battle after being accused of intentionally misleading his wife about his financial status during pre-divorce proceedings. The wife, who claims she left him after he began a relationship with her best friend with the intent of entering into a polygamous marriage, alleges that he concealed his wealth, including his ownership of trusts, directorships, and cryptocurrency investments.
According to Durban Acting High Court Judge Garth Davis, the surgeon claimed to earn only R79,500 per month in an affidavit, failing to address the wife's allegations of his substantial assets. Davis described the surgeon's submissions as "at best misguided" and "a disingenuous attempt to obfuscate his financial position."
The wife, who has not been named to protect the children's interests, claims that the family home is worth R10 million and that the surgeon owns vehicles valued at R1 million. She also believes he has R950,000 invested in cryptocurrency.
Davis noted that the surgeon's spending habits, including luxury purchases and vacations, contradict his claims of limited income. The wife seeks monthly expenses of over R108,000, including a R171,000 payment for household furniture, medical aid coverage, educational costs, and a R50,000 contribution to legal fees.
While acknowledging the surgeon's lack of transparency, Davis emphasized that the wife's demands were excessive. Rule 43 proceedings are intended to provide swift financial support to spouses in need, but they do not grant a "wish list."
Davis ordered the surgeon to pay monthly maintenance of R55,000, as well as medical and educational expenses. He granted payments of R50,000 for furniture and R40,000 for legal costs.
The case highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in divorce proceedings, particularly when one party alleges the other is deliberately withholding financial information. Courts strive to ensure fair outcomes while balancing the needs of both spouses.
According to Durban Acting High Court Judge Garth Davis, the surgeon claimed to earn only R79,500 per month in an affidavit, failing to address the wife's allegations of his substantial assets. Davis described the surgeon's submissions as "at best misguided" and "a disingenuous attempt to obfuscate his financial position."
The wife, who has not been named to protect the children's interests, claims that the family home is worth R10 million and that the surgeon owns vehicles valued at R1 million. She also believes he has R950,000 invested in cryptocurrency.
Davis noted that the surgeon's spending habits, including luxury purchases and vacations, contradict his claims of limited income. The wife seeks monthly expenses of over R108,000, including a R171,000 payment for household furniture, medical aid coverage, educational costs, and a R50,000 contribution to legal fees.
While acknowledging the surgeon's lack of transparency, Davis emphasized that the wife's demands were excessive. Rule 43 proceedings are intended to provide swift financial support to spouses in need, but they do not grant a "wish list."
Davis ordered the surgeon to pay monthly maintenance of R55,000, as well as medical and educational expenses. He granted payments of R50,000 for furniture and R40,000 for legal costs.
The case highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in divorce proceedings, particularly when one party alleges the other is deliberately withholding financial information. Courts strive to ensure fair outcomes while balancing the needs of both spouses.
