Family: Mother who left children pays the price

A woman who, according to her now ex-husband, loved nice cars and fashionable clothing, has forfeited her half of their matrimonial home, as well as her share of his pension money; all because she left him 11 years ago, leaving him to fend for their three children. The youngest child was two at the time and her husband told Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) Acting Judge JP Phooko that until recently, she had not bothered to check up on the children. A Pretoria News report says the man turned to court asking for a divorce, coupled with an order that she forfeit her marital benefits. The wife launched a counter application in which she said she was entitled to half of the house and pension, as she was a good wife during the time she had lived with her husband. The wife pointed out that she, after all, gave him the gift of three children.

In the preamble to the judgment, Phooko said: 'It is open to the parties prior to the conclusion of a civil marriage to identify a marital regime that will best serve and protect their respective interests. Consequently, a marriage could be in community of property, out of community of property with accrual, or out of community of property without accrual. This is a divorce matter wherein the parties concluded a marriage in community.’ But the Pretoria News report notes the husband said if his wife was to get half of everything, she would unduly benefit. Phooko noted that the wife was described as someone who had a taste for fashion and spent her money on designer clothes and frequently got a new car. When she fell into arrears, the husband bailed her out.

While the judge did not comment on the allegations of the couple having affairs, he took into consideration that the husband was a good father who took care of his children during the 11 years his wife had left him. ‘Also, during their marriage he cooked, bathed the children, took them to school, and washed all their clothes despite them both having jobs outside of the home. He was the primary financial provider in the home and the primary caregiver.’ He concluded that the wife had to forfeit her half of the house and of her husband’s pension fund. Phooko said it was not as if she in any event brought anything into the marriage in the first place.