A wife’s posting on Facebook announcing her baby shower came at a high price as upon divorce, she forfeited her share of her husband’s pension payout. A Facebook post made by a man’s estranged wife announcing her baby shower proved to be the tipping point, leading him to petition the court for the forfeiture of her share of his pension payout in their divorce. It came to light that the wife had given birth to another child—her third—with a different partner, stemming from a romantic involvement that also included one of her husband’s friends.
The court ruling does not specify who the father of this child is. While the husband did kick her out of the house because she had an affair, he said the news of the baby shower still came as a shock. When the matter came before the court, both parties agreed to the divorce.
The only issue to be decided was whether the wife should forfeit the R2.3 million benefit arising from the husband’s pension fund. The parties were married in community of property in January 2011. In August 2024, the wife issued a divorce summons seeking a division of the joint estate.
Read Full Article on Cape Argus
[paywall]
They agreed that the joint estate be divided equally amongst them, apart from the husband’s pension. He asked for an order that the wife forfeit this benefit, citing substantial misconduct on her part. The parties have not lived together as husband and wife since 2020.
Only the husband testified during the divorce, stating that while they were together, she was engaged in a romantic relationship with his friend. Counsel for the wife further questioned him about a mediation session held at the marital home where a relative had been asked to mediate. It is claimed that his alleged girlfriend was present during the family meeting.
Judge Noluntu Bam stated she had no reason to doubt the credibility of the husband. “His answers did not strike me as far-fetched. He spoke candidly about the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of his marriage.” While the wife did not testify, she called a family member as a witness, who the judge remarked had nothing more to add to the matter.
In deciding whether the wife would unduly benefit if she were allowed half of her husband’s pension, Judge Bam noted that while the husband was responsible for the family’s financial needs, it does not mean that 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 coordination of these activities reside with the party who stays at home,” she said.
The judge added that, to the wife’s credit, without her testimony, the court is prepared to accept that as a mother who stayed at home, she was responsible for the upkeep of the family home, supporting the defendant and the children in their daily life. However, Judge Bam acknowledged that the relationship broke down due to the wife’s involvement in an extramarital relationship with the husband’s friend.
[/paywall]
