A father of three may spend his weekends in jail if he does not pay the R60,000 monthly maintenance within 60 days, as ordered by the court.
The Western Cape High Court stated that the father, who is separated from the mother (they were not married), cannot evade compliance with a court order and is clearly in contempt of court.
A judge previously found the man to be in contempt after he chose to ignore the order requiring him to pay R60,000 a month in maintenance, as well as contribute towards the children’s school fees, medical aid, and the rent of the house where the mother and children reside. Instead, he opted to pay slightly more than R22,000 a month, neglecting the other expenses he was obligated to cover.
The father cited his struggling business as the reason for not paying the mandatory R60,000 a month, claiming he could not afford the amount ordered by the court. However, the children’s mother, who has now turned to the court to have him imprisoned for contempt, argued that he is a wealthy businessman, while she is a homemaker. She requested that, as an alternative to imprisonment, he be ordered to perform community service as punishment.
In response, the father argued that he cannot be sent to jail, as he needs to work to turn his business around. He contended that if he were imprisoned, both his children and their mother would suffer financially, as he would then be unable to provide any maintenance. He also expressed concern that his children would suffer emotionally if he were incarcerated, as he would not be able to see them.
However, Acting Judge RK Parker stated that this was not an issue, as a periodic prison sentence served over weekends would allow him to work during the week and see his children. The judge granted him a 60-day lifeline to pay all arrears and honour his R60,000 monthly commitment. If he fails to comply, he must report to his local prison at 5 PM on Friday and serve until 6 AM on Monday, until he has completed 30 days.
“The Respondent’s (father) actions are troubling and warrant attention. Considering all the evidence, it would not be appropriate to let the Respondent off with minimal consequences. To do so would send a detrimental message to South African citizens, implying that disregard for court orders is tolerated,” the judge remarked.
He added that allowing such behaviour would set a harmful precedent, undermining the authority of court orders and potentially discouraging vulnerable groups, including women and children, from asserting their rights to maintenance, health, and education.
“Confidence in the legal system hinges on the meaningful exercise of the constitutional right to access courts, which necessitates that litigants have faith in the judiciary’s capacity to safeguard their rights, particularly when seeking enforcement against recalcitrant individuals whose non-compliance jeopardises children’s access to essential maintenance, health, and educational provisions,” the judge stated.
He acknowledged the father's plea regarding his business and family obligations but emphasised that he must safeguard the rights and well-being of the children involved. The father cannot escape the consequences he has brought upon himself.
Judge Parker reiterated that the 2022 court order remains in effect, requiring the father to pay R60,000 a month, along with the other expenses. Until the man applies for a variation of that order, he cannot evade these financial obligations.
Pretoria News