A father who owes more than R600,000 in outstanding child maintenance has been ordered by the Free State High Court in Bloemfontein to comply with a maintenance order within 14 days or risk serving a suspended 60-day prison sentence after being found guilty of contempt of court.
Acting Judge L Mpama found that the father had wilfully and in bad faith ignored maintenance orders issued by the Welkom Regional Court and the High Court, despite being fully aware of his legal obligations. The court ruled that his conduct amounted to a direct affront to the authority of the courts and undermined the best interests of his three minor children.
He was sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years on condition that he complies with the maintenance order granted in August 2018 which required him to pay R9,000 a month. He has to comply with the ordered within 14 days of the judgment. Should he fail to do so, the court authorised the execution of a warrant for his arrest and imprisonment.
Years of maintenance disputes
The judgment states that the parties divorced in August 2018 after a marriage from which three minor children were born. The Welkom Regional Court granted the applicant primary care and residence of the children and ordered the father to pay R9,000 per month in child maintenance.
Before the divorce, he had already accumulated maintenance arrears of R58,000. As part of the divorce settlement, the parties agreed that those arrears would be settled through payment of the children’s school fees, while the monthly maintenance obligation of R9,000 would continue.
According to the judgment, the former couple have spent years litigating over the father’s failure to comply with the maintenance orders, with the mother repeatedly approaching various courts in an attempt to compel him to meet his obligations.
Arrears exceed R600,000
The mother told the court the father was R612,000 in arrears in child maintenance arising from the divorce order and subsequent High Court orders.
Although the father admitted that he had failed to comply with the maintenance orders, the judge found he had failed to advance a proper legal defence. Instead, much of his affidavit criticised the applicant and the litigation between them.
Judge Mpama said the father never claimed that he could not afford to pay maintenance, concluding that he had simply chosen not to comply.
The court found that his failure to comply with the maintenance orders “was not inadvertent but deliberate and at most instances accentuated by mala fides”.
Children’s interests undermined
Judge Mpama said the father had shown “a total disregard” for the rights of his children, noting that the applicant had spent more than a decade approaching various courts in an effort to compel him to fulfil his parental responsibilities.
The court also highlighted that the father had previously served as a prosecutor and, by virtue of that position, was deemed to be a maintenance officer under the Maintenance Act.
His failure to comply with maintenance orders he was once responsible for enforcing constituted “a direct affront to the authority of this court”, the judge said, adding that such conduct could not be condoned.
Suspended jail sentence
While finding the father guilty of contempt of court, the judge made it clear that the issue of the more than R600,000 in maintenance arrears should be determined by the maintenance court, which has the statutory powers to adjudicate arrear maintenance claims.
The fatther was ordered to resume compliance with the original 2018 maintenance order requiring him to pay R9,000 a month. If he fails to comply within 14 days of the judgment, the suspended 60-day prison sentence may be enforced, and he was also ordered to pay the costs of the contempt application.
The judgment does not order him to pay the entire R612,000 arrears within 14 days. Instead, it requires him to comply with the maintenance order within that period.
The judge also stated that the issue of the R600,000 arrear maintenance should be dealt with by the maintenance court, which has the statutory powers to determine and enforce those arrears.
