A woman’s infidelity and Facebook post came at a high cost for her after the court ordered that she would forfeit her half of her husband’s pension in a divorce action. The couple were married in community of property in January 2011, and the wife issued divorce proceedings in August 2024, seeking a decree of divorce and division of the joint estate. The parties agreed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the joint estate be divided equally among them.
However, the husband sought an order that she forfeit her 50% share of his pension payout from his pension fund, the Municipal Gratuity Fund, after it emerged that she was having a child with his friend. The matter was heard at the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg. According to the husband’s testimony, he discovered that his wife was engaged in a romantic relationship with his friend, which resulted in him chasing her away from the marital home, as he found the situation intolerable.
In support of his claim for partial forfeiture of benefits, the husband stated that from the time the parties were married, the wife was not employed, and he was responsible for the family’s financial needs. He further learnt that his wife and friend were having a child when he came across a post on her Facebook profile stating that she had a baby shower. In its determination, the court highlighted that the onus rests on the party seeking forfeiture to show that one party will be unduly benefited if an order of forfeiture is not made.
Read Full Article on The Sowetan
[paywall]
And to answer that question, regard should be had to the factors mentioned in section 9 of the Divorce Act, which permits forfeiture orders where one party would be unduly benefited, considering the marriage duration, circumstances of breakdown, and any substantial misconduct. What I regard as misconduct is not only the plaintiff’s involvement with a third party but the act of procreating with a third party and then publicising the birth by posting messages of her baby shower on Facebook In deciding whether the wife would unduly benefit if she were awarded 50% of her husband’s pension, judge Noluntu Bam noted that while the husband was responsible for the family’s financial needs, it did not necessarily mean the wife made no contribution to the marriage. “There is a whole system that runs in the background to make most family homes stable. In most instances, the management and co-ordination of these activities reside with the party who stays at home,” the judge said.
[/paywall]
