Court slams man for holidaying while not paying wife’s maintenance
The high court has slammed a man who went on holiday in Namibia while ignoring a court order to support his estranged wife financially.
The court said the man had enough time and money to holiday and stay at a game reserve but failed to pay court-ordered maintenance. The court branded him as dishonest and in contempt of court for owing more than R23,000 in maintenance.
The man had violated a September 2025 interim order pending the finalisation of the couple’s divorce.
Acting judge Veronique Barthus of the Western Cape High Court said the man’s holiday exposed his attitude towards his maintenance obligations and the authority of the court.
“What it does, however, demonstrate is that the respondent [man] was enjoying vacations while the maintenance order went unpaid,” the judge said.
“This is inconsistent with good faith and evidences the respondent’s attitude towards the applicant [wife] and the court order.”
The damning finding came after the man tried to explain his repeated late and non-payments by claiming he was unavailable while travelling and had limited reception.
The court found that his travel explanation did not account for the “sustained pattern of late payment” or why reimbursements stopped altogether after November 2025.
The respondent was declared in contempt of court after failing to comply with a rule 43 order issued on September 2 2025.
The order required him to pay monthly maintenance and cover several other expenses, including medical costs, vehicle-related expenses, property costs and a monthly Sanlam premium.
He was also required to reimburse the woman within five days of receiving invoices or proof of payment.
Instead, the court found that payments were repeatedly delayed and eventually stopped.
The September 2025 cash maintenance was only paid on September 17, despite the respondent having agreed that payments would start from September 1.
Reimbursements submitted in October were also delayed, while no further reimbursements were made after November 26 despite additional claims.
The unpaid expenses included medical costs, Pathcare blood tests, prescription spectacles, security invoices, tyre replacement, lawnmower petrol and the November 2025 Sanlam premium.
The man argued that some expenses were not “properly vouched for” and that he was entitled to determine whether claims were reasonable before paying them.
But Barthus rejected this argument, saying the court order gave him no such discretion.
“The obligation is triggered by receipt of the invoice, not by the respondent’s personal satisfaction with its contents,” the judge said.
The man also blamed delays on an attorney-only communication arrangement.
But the court found that he had imposed this arrangement himself.
“The respondent’s reliance on attorney-only communication is disingenuous. He imposed that communication channel. He cannot now rely on it as an excuse for delay,” Barthus said.
The court further rejected his late claim that the maintenance order was ambiguous.
Barthus said the order was clear and that the ambiguity argument was an attempt to escape responsibility.
“The respondent’s attempt to invoke ambiguity at this late stage is not a genuine interpretive concern but a transparent effort to evade responsibility,” the judge said.
The judge found that the man’s conduct was not the result of occasional administrative mistakes but a deliberate pattern of refusing to comply.
“The respondent’s version is not merely improbable; it is demonstrably false in material respects.
“The court simply cannot permit a litigant to undermine its authority through selective compliance, unjustified refusals, belated and opportunistic arguments, and evasive explanations.”
The man was declared in contempt and sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for three years.
The sentence will only take effect if he is found guilty of contempt during the suspension period.
He was also ordered to pay R23,350.76 within five days and to pay the legal costs of the application.