The plaintiff (husband) and defendant (wife) were married and had a 9-year-old daughter. The parties separated in August 2012, which was the last time they shared conjugal rights. The plaintiff alleged he lost love and affection for the defendant because of her prolonged stay in South Africa, and when he requested her to return home, she refused. The defendant did not want the marriage dissolved for the sake of their child. A prior maintenance order from the magistrates' court required the plaintiff to pay $100 per month for the child and $50 per month for the defendant. The plaintiff worked for QV Pharmacies, which was under judicial management and experiencing financial difficulties, resulting in erratic salary payments. The defendant was employed and earning $80 per month. At trial, the defendant appeared unrepresented, claiming her legal practitioner was improperly associating with her husband, and she was uncooperative throughout the proceedings.
A decree of divorce was granted. The plaintiff was ordered to pay $100 per month maintenance plus school fees and medical aid for the minor child, and $30 per month for the defendant. Custody of the minor child was awarded to the defendant with the plaintiff having access every alternate weekend and every alternate school holiday. The matrimonial property was divided between the parties as specified in the order, with the plaintiff receiving items including wardrobe, headboard, bed, motor vehicle, laptop, flat screen television, carpet and DStv decoder, while the defendant received 2 television sets, queen size bed, 7-piece kitchen table, fridge, kitchen unit, lounge suit, microwave, home theatre and DVD player. Each party was to bear their own costs.
Where parties have lived apart for more than one year and the marriage has irretrievably broken down, a decree of divorce will be granted. In determining maintenance, child maintenance should be prioritized and protected even where the paying party experiences financial difficulties, while spousal maintenance may be reduced where the recipient spouse is young, able-bodied and gainfully employed. The best interests of minor children remain paramount in custody and maintenance determinations.
The court made observations about the defendant's uncooperative behavior during the proceedings, noting that she appeared to be enjoying being difficult and had to be admonished for laughing and smiling when her lack of cooperation was being described. The court noted there was nothing amusing about such conduct. The court also observed that the defendant's allegations against her legal practitioner regarding improper association with her husband were disputed by the plaintiff, who characterized the defendant as simply being very difficult and uncooperative throughout.
This case is a Zimbabwean High Court judgment dealing with divorce proceedings, not a South African case. It illustrates the court's approach to determining irretrievable breakdown of marriage, maintenance obligations for both children and spouses, and the factors considered when varying existing maintenance orders. The judgment demonstrates judicial consideration of economic circumstances affecting maintenance payments while prioritizing the best interests of minor children. It also shows the court's approach to uncooperative litigants in divorce proceedings.