A Cape Town father - a repeat contempt of court offender - was sentenced to 240 hours of periodical imprisonment over weekends from 6pm on a Friday until 6am on a Monday until such time as the stipulated number of hours had been reached.
Image: File
A father who was errant in paying his court-ordered maintenance amounts was ordered to serve jail time if he did not cough up his arrears amount owed to the mother of his two minor children.
The mother and father, who are divorced under Sharia Law while their civil marriage still subsists, both turned to the Western Cape High Court (the father in a counter-application) but the court found in favour of the mother as the primary caregiver of the children.
The father - a repeat contempt of court offender - was sentenced to 240 hours of periodical imprisonment over weekends from 6pm on a Friday until 6am on a Monday until such time as the stipulated number of hours had been reached.
The sentence would have been suspended if he was able to pay the R16,000 maintenance arrears amount owed and if it was paid in full by on or before 5pm on 20 January 2025 and complied with the Rule 43 (divorce and maintenance) order made in the high court during May 2021.
The reasons given by acting judge Phillipa van Zyl, detailed that the father failed to pay certain expenses which included his ex-wife and children’s monthly rental as well as monthly DSTV/Multichoice, Netflix, internet/Wi-Fi subscription fee, yearly TV license costs, and the ex-wife’s monthly cell phone costs.
Acting Judge Van Zyl said the parties were at loggerheads and their affidavits in these proceedings were “brimful of invective” adding that this spilled over to litigation hearings where the aggression was palpable at the hearing.
“This is an unfortunate situation, because it bodes ill for any possibility of resolving the disputes in a civil manner. The state of affairs cannot be a happy one for the children,” said acting Judge Van Zyl.
The unpaid expenses giving rise to the contempt application consisted of two months’ rental in respect of the applicants’ and the minor children’s residence being the rental owing for November 2024 and December 2024 in the total sum of R16,000. It also included various additional expenses payable in terms of the order for the period July to October 2024 (in the total sum of R27,129,13).
The man argued that the residence in which the woman lived was the deceased estate of the woman’s sister - which she is to inherit but is not yet the legal owner as the rental is paid to wind up the deceased estate.
In his counter application to the court, the man sought for the appointment of a curator ad litem to the parties’ two minor children.
According to the ex-husband, the children were being neglected and exposed to dubious influences. The court labelled these reasons as “speculative”.
“(It was) not supported by any evidence that would raise a red flag in relation to the children’s well-being. He cast aspersions on the applicant’s lifestyle, which he clearly disapproved of, but there was no evidence that the children were being harmed by the applicant’s lifestyle choices.”