Africa-Press – South-Africa. The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed an application of a man who sought to change the terms of his divorce settlement because his ex-wife now lives with another man.
The man, identified in the court papers as SLM, married his ex-wife BM out of community of property in 2004.
They divorced in 2017.
He signed a divorce settlement drafted by BM’s lawyer without legal representation. The court said this was not due to economic restraints as he owned two successful businesses, a restaurant and a panel beating business.
The settlement stated that SLM would pay BM monthly maintenance of R100 000 and buy her a new car every five years.
These terms would be terminable if BM died or remarried. However, SLM approached the court to have the clause about remarriage include cohabitation.
The application emanated from BM’s relationship with a third party.
SLM learnt about the relationship from his and BM’s child born in their marriage. The court also heard that the third party was the father of BM’s other child born within her marriage in 2012.
The court judgment stated that SLM had DNA evidence to this effect.
The court heard the testimonies of SLM and M, BM’s helper for seven years until January.
M testified that the third party, identified in court papers as B, had some of his clothes in BM’s home, indicating a cohabitation arrangement.
The court also heard that B did not live with BM permanently as he also spent time in his home in Houghton.
BM told the court she was in an on-and-off relationship with B. She also told the court that both children lived with her in Fourways.
On BM and B’s relationship, the court said:
SLM testified that he did not intend to pay the spousal maintenance indefinitely. He said he agreed to the agreement because he wanted the divorce to be finalised.
He argued that the recognition of same-sex relationships and partnerships merited the recognition of marriage.
He thus said BM’s alleged cohabitation with B merited recognition as a marriage. However, the court ruled his argument had no substance.
“The fact that the law now recognises other relationships as akin to marriage and the parties to such relationships equally deserving of the protection of the law does not mean that in the settlement agreement now before court, the word “marriage” should be given an extended definition never intended by the parties.”
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
