A Cape Town man has been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for repeatedly defying a High Court maintenance order but will avoid jail if he pays his former spouse R23,350 within five days and complies with court orders for the next three years.
The Western Cape High Court suspended the six-month prison sentence for three years on condition that the man is not found guilty of contempt again during that period and settles the R23,350 within five days of the order.
He was also ordered to pay the legal costs on the punitive attorney-and-own-client scale.
Acting Judge V Barthus ruled that the man’s repeated late payments, refusal to reimburse expenses, and “selective compliance” amounted to contempt of court.
The dispute arose from a Rule 43 order issued in September 2025 regulating interim maintenance while the couple’s divorce remains pending.
The order required the husband to pay monthly cash maintenance, cover medical expenses, vehicle-related costs, property expenses and a Sanlam insurance premium. It also required him to reimburse the wife within five days of receiving invoices or proof of payment.
The unpaid expenses included medical prescriptions, Pathcare blood tests, prescription spectacles, security costs, tyre replacement, lawnmower fuel and the November 2025 Sanlam premium — all expenses the court found were clearly covered by the maintenance order.
Judge Barthus found that the husband had established a consistent pattern of ignoring those obligations.
The court rejected each of those explanations.
Judge Barthus noted that it was the husband himself who had insisted that all communication be routed through attorneys before later attempting to use that arrangement as an excuse for delays.
“There is no evidence to support the respondent’s assertion that this mode of communication was initiated by the applicant,” the judge found.
The husband also claimed he had been travelling in Namibia and staying at a game reserve when payments became due, but the court said he produced no documentary evidence to support those claims.
Instead, the judge observed that the evidence showed he had continued enjoying holidays while leaving maintenance obligations unpaid.
One of the man’s main arguments was that he was entitled to decide whether expenses were “reasonable” before reimbursing them.
Judge Barthus dismissed that argument, finding that the maintenance order gave him no such discretion.
The judgment stated that the obligation to reimburse was triggered by receiving an invoice, not by the respondent’s personal approval of the expense.
Accepting his interpretation, the judge said, would effectively rewrite the court order by allowing him to suspend payments whenever he chose.
The judge also rejected the husband’s argument that the wife should first have attempted to enforce the maintenance order through execution proceedings rather than contempt proceedings, noting that maintenance beneficiaries should not be forced to pursue expensive enforcement measures before seeking contempt relief.
Judge Barthus concluded that the man’s conduct was “not merely improbable” but “demonstrably false in material respects.”
“The court simply cannot permit a litigant to undermine its authority through selective compliance, unjustified refusals, belated and opportunistic arguments, and evasive explanations,” read the judgment.
