Maintenance case blows up after wife accused of ‘exaggerating’ financial hardship

A woman’s attempt to secure increased maintenance for herself and her two young children imploded after it emerged that she had overstated her financial hardship and failed to come clean about her true financial position. The ruling relates to a legal battle between S.J.J and her husband, M.M.J, who married in October 2012 and separated in December 2023, with their divorce pending. S.J.J approached the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg seeking maintenance for herself and the couple’s two minor children — a nine-year-old son and a four-year-old daughter — along with a contribution towards her legal costs.

M.M.J opposed the application and filed a counterclaim seeking expanded contact and shared residency of the children, who currently live with their mother. His existing contact arrangements allow him access every Thursday from 4:30pm to 6:30pm and on Saturdays from 9am to 5pm. In her submissions, S.J.J told the court that she left her employment before the birth of their son following an agreement between the couple that she would resign from her job.

She said she had held a secure position with a competitive salary at the time and only resigned after receiving assurances from her husband that he would support the household and maintain their standard of living. According to her evidence, M.M.J was the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage and paid the bond on their three-bedroom home, levies, utilities, Wi-Fi, solar costs, medical aid, school fees and other household expenses. The wife further claimed that she left the marital home due to coercive control and financial abuse. She is currently living in a two-bedroom unit owned by her grandmother and stated that she pays R12 000 per month on a loan account basis, although she can only afford R8 000 at present.