Key Takeaways:
- The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has granted a decree of divorce and ordered a wife to forfeit her claim to her husband’s pension benefits due to her substantial misconduct during the marriage.
- The wife’s extramarital affair and the birth of a child with another man were cited as the main reasons for the court’s decision.
- The husband’s pension fund is valued at approximately R2.3 million, and the court ruled that the wife would be unduly benefited if she were allowed to share in it.
- The couple’s marriage had irretrievably broken down, and they had lived apart since 2020.
- The court ordered an equal division of the joint estate, excluding the husband’s pension, and awarded permanent residence of the minor children to the mother.
Introduction to the Case
The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has made a significant ruling in a divorce case, granting a decree of divorce and ordering a wife to forfeit her claim to her husband’s pension benefits. The court’s decision was based on the wife’s substantial misconduct during the marriage, which included an extramarital affair and the birth of a child with another man. The couple, who were married in community of property in January 2011, had lived apart since 2020 and had agreed to an equal division of the joint estate. However, the husband sought to exclude his pension from the settlement, citing his wife’s misconduct.
The Wife’s Misconduct
The court heard that the wife, who was unemployed throughout the marriage, became romantically involved with one of the husband’s friends while they were still living together. This led to a breakdown in the marriage, and the husband eventually discovered that his wife had given birth to a third child with another man. The wife chose not to testify in court, leading the judge to rely heavily on the husband’s account of events. The court papers did not mention who the father of the child was, but it was clear that the wife’s actions had caused significant harm to the marriage.
The Husband’s Testimony
During cross-examination, the husband was questioned about a property belonging to the joint estate that he sold for R65,000 in December 2020. He explained that he sold the property to his sister to cover medical expenses after falling seriously ill and dismissed allegations that he misrepresented his marital status to exclude the wife. The husband also denied allegations of an extramarital relationship with a woman named L, saying that she was someone he knew from their area. The judge accepted the husband’s explanation and found that the wife’s misconduct was the primary cause of the marriage breakdown.
The Court’s Decision
Judge Noluntu Nelisa Bam weighed the evidence and found that the wife’s involvement in an extramarital relationship with the husband’s friend, combined with the fact that she gave birth to a third child with another man and publicly celebrated the birth on social media, constituted misconduct that effectively destroyed any remaining prospects of reconciliation. The judge ruled that allowing the wife to benefit from the husband’s pension would amount to an undue advantage, particularly given that she was now in another relationship from which she could derive support. The court granted a decree of divorce, ordered an equal division of the joint estate excluding the husband’s pension, and awarded permanent residence of the minor children to the mother.
Conclusion and Orders
The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the conduct of both parties during a marriage when making decisions about the division of assets. In this case, the wife’s substantial misconduct led to the breakdown of the marriage, and the court found that she would be unduly benefited if she were allowed to share in the husband’s pension. The court’s orders, including the equal division of the joint estate and the award of parental responsibilities and rights of care, demonstrate a commitment to fairness and justice in the face of complex and challenging circumstances. Despite the husband’s success in the forfeiture claim, the court ruled that each party should pay their own legal costs, citing the interests of justice.
