A WOMAN who had left her husband nearly 26 years ago, but never got divorced from him, got wind of the substantial amount in his pension fund as he is about to retire. She now wants to divorce him after all these years - presumably to cash in on his pension.
The husband, on the other hand, said he had over the years worked hard as a police officer to build his government pension and he is not about to share it with a wife who had left him all those years ago.
In a counterclaim, he asked the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, for an order that the wife should forfeit her half of his pension benefits.
The court, which in the end ordered that the wife was only entitled to 20% of her husband’s pension benefits, remarked in this regard: “It would appear that the parties aligned themselves with the lives they lived until the reality of a pension fund payout to the defendant (husband) saw the day of light.
“This pot of gold at the end of the rainbow seemed to trigger the plaintiff’s (wife) decision to institute the divorce proceedings.”
The wife, in her divorce application, told the court she is entitled to share in her husband’s Government Employees Pension Fund, as she is still married to him.
In 1987, the defendant paid lobola, and in 1994, the couple concluded their civil marriage in community of property.
The defendant testified that his wife left the matrimonial home in 1998, while he was still recovering from injuries suffered in a car accident. The reason for this, he claimed, was because “she did not want to take care of someone with crutches”.
Since the wife left the matrimonial home in 1998, they never again lived together. The defendant continued with his career as a police officer and his wife worked cleaning offices.
They earned their respective livings in Gauteng while the children were in the care of the paternal grandparents in Limpopo.
He explained that during his career, he mainly resided in the SAPS barracks. He does not own immovable property, and the only substantial asset he has is vested in his pension fund. It is unclear what the value of the pension fund is.
Meanwhile, the wife managed to purchase an RDP house about 12 years ago without any assistance from her husband.
The husband has now retired from the SAPS after a career spanning 31 years.
The husband testified that the wife is only entitled to a fraction of his contributions - the years they had actually lived together - and not to 50%. He said she was not part of his life and she was not there when he needed her.
The court noted that although not ideal, it would appear that the couple proceeded with their lives in isolation from each other and they did their best to earn a living and to provide for the children.
They had a marriage of 38 years, but only lived together for a few years, whereafter each of them went their own way.
It was also noted that from 1992 until his retirement now, the husband worked hard for more than 30 years to contribute to his pension fund.
The wife, having left in 1998, was only part of six years of this period of contribution. There is no evidence that she in any way made any contributions towards the husband, the court said in only awarding her 20% of his pension benefit.
zelda.venter@inl.co.za