A Cape Town father who stopped paying maintenance for his two teenage daughters while continuing to fund what a judge described as a luxurious lifestyle for his new family has been found in contempt of court by the Western Cape High Court after accumulating maintenance arrears exceeding R460,000.
In a judgment delivered on 17 June 2026, Acting Judge Diane Davis ruled that the father’s failure to comply with maintenance obligations contained in a 2015 divorce order was wilful and mala fide, rejecting his claim that he lacked the financial means to meet his obligations.
The case concerns two daughters, now aged 15 and 13, whose parents divorced in 2015. Under a settlement agreement that was made an order of court, the father undertook to pay maintenance of R10,000 per month per child, subject to annual increases of 8%, contribute to medical aid premiums, cover medical expenses and maintain an education policy for the children’s future tertiary studies.
For nearly a decade, the father complied with the order. However, in October 2024 he informed his former wife that he could no longer afford the payments and stopped paying maintenance altogether from November 2024. He also ceased paying medical aid contributions the following month.
By then, his maintenance obligation had increased to almost R40,000 per month for both children.
The mother approached the High Court on an urgent basis in May 2025 after arrears reached R279,860. In June 2025, the court ordered the father to settle the outstanding amount within 48 hours and continue complying with the divorce order. He failed to do so.
A second urgent application followed in September 2025 after the arrears ballooned to R461,355.80, including unpaid maintenance and medical aid contributions.
During the proceedings, the father contended that he had suffered a dramatic financial decline. He previously worked as an air traffic controller in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, earning between R250,000 and R320,000 per month. He told the court that he had accumulated debts exceeding R7 million, largely owed to financial institutions in the Middle East, and remained in South Africa after learning that creditors were pursuing him.
After returning home, he secured employment with the Cape Winelands Airport Company, earning approximately R73,000 per month. He argued that he was now the sole breadwinner for his second wife and their three young children and was genuinely unable to comply with the maintenance order.
Judge Davis was not persuaded.
The court found significant shortcomings in the father’s evidence, noting that he failed to make full disclosure of his assets, did not adequately explain the origin and use of various loans and debts, and provided insufficient information about income flowing into bank accounts held by him and his wife.
The judgment highlighted numerous unexplained deposits, including insurance proceeds, policy payouts, consultancy fees and proceeds from the sale of personal assets.
More significantly, the court found that the father’s spending patterns were inconsistent with his claims of financial hardship.
Evidence revealed that while paying little or nothing towards the support of his daughters, he continued to spend substantial amounts on what the court regarded as non-essential expenses for his new family.
Among the expenditures scrutinised by the court was a Toyota Fortuner lease costing R9,388.19 per month. The father entered into the lease agreement in February 2025 after he had already stopped paying maintenance. Judge Davis noted that he had sold another vehicle and elected to take on the Fortuner expense instead of directing funds toward his mounting maintenance arrears.
The court also examined a payment of R17,850 to “ATKV Staanplek” in November 2025, which appeared to relate to a family camping holiday in Hartenbos. The judge described holidays as a luxury, particularly given that the father had paid only R2,000 in maintenance during almost a year of non-compliance.
Further criticism was directed at the family’s domestic worker expenses. Financial records showed payments of R9,000 per month for domestic help during July 2025, later reduced to R4,000 monthly. Judge Davis considered this an unnecessary luxury, particularly as the father’s wife was unemployed.
The court also highlighted extensive spending on extracurricular activities for the father’s younger children, including swimming lessons costing R3,000 per month, occupational therapy of R3,200 monthly, school fees of R8,300 and additional expenses for dance classes, tennis, rugby, playball and reading programmes.
Judge Davis found it difficult to reconcile spending exceeding R16,000 per month on such activities while paying little or no maintenance for his older daughters.
The family’s accommodation arrangements also attracted judicial scrutiny. The father rented a home costing between R23,000 and R26,000 per month and lived in what was described as a luxury estate in Hartenbos. The court found that he had failed to demonstrate that less expensive accommodation was unavailable.
Bank records relating to the father’s wife further reflected what the court described as a comfortable lifestyle, including average monthly expenditure of approximately R19,588 on groceries, R4,500 on restaurants, takeaways and coffee shops, R5,445 on clothing, R5,887 on entertainment, gifts and parties, and nearly R12,889 on shopping and pet-related expenses.
Judge Davis concluded that these spending patterns portrayed a “luxurious lifestyle” that contradicted the father’s assertion that he was financially incapable of complying with the maintenance order.
The court stressed that even where a parent is genuinely unable to pay the full amount stipulated in a maintenance order, the law requires that parent to pay whatever amount is reasonably possible and to prioritise maintenance obligations above discretionary spending.
In a strongly worded judgment, Judge Davis stated that spending money on luxuries while court-ordered maintenance remains unpaid is incompatible with good faith and demonstrates a deliberate decision to place maintenance obligations at the bottom of one’s priorities.
The court found that the father had failed to make any meaningful contribution towards maintenance for almost a year and only began making small payments after contempt proceedings had been instituted against him.
His conduct, the judge held, demonstrated a disregard for court orders and an attempt to decide for himself whether those orders should be obeyed.
The High Court consequently declared him to be in contempt of three separate court orders: the original divorce order granted in August 2015, a June 2025 enforcement order requiring payment of arrears, and an October 2025 order relating to the filing of court papers.
In addition to the earlier arrears order of R279,860, the court directed the father to pay a further R181,495.80 in outstanding maintenance and medical aid contributions. The precise repayment arrangements will be determined by the Paarl Maintenance Court during a pending maintenance enquiry.
Judge Davis also ordered the father to pay the mother’s legal costs on the punitive attorney-and-client scale, finding such an order necessary in light of his persistent non-compliance with court orders and the prejudice suffered by the children and their mother.
