A mother of three who said her husband has “absconded” from their marital home in March last year and she has no idea where he is, asked the court to order that he forfeited his share of their matrimonial benefits when they divorce, as he simply left her to fend for herself and the children.
The woman turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, where she simply told the court that in spite of her efforts to locate her husband, she is unable to contact him as she has no idea where he was.
The court said it was concerned about the fact that her allegations were not substantiated. “The plaintiff (woman) simply states that the defendant (husband) absconded from the relationship and the common home on or about March 2023 and that in doing so the defendant left her to fend for herself and the three minor children.”
The court said notably lacking is any evidence of any significance as to why the plaintiff believes that her husband with whom she has been married and shared a home since 2007 and with whom she has had three children, would have absconded without any warning.
It was stated in a letter written by the woman’s attorney that the parties have been separated since March last year when the man suddenly absconded from their common home.
The wife has made numerous attempts to locate him, including checking in with family, friends, hospitals, and mortuaries and has been unsuccessful in doing so.
The court said apart from the contents of the letter not being under oath, it raises more questions than it answers. “It may be that the defendant did not abscond but rather may have died and this may explain why he did not return to the family home that he had shared with his wife since March last year.”
It added that in the absence of evidence, there is an inadequate basis to find that the defendant absconded rather than passed away.
This is particularly so as the plaintiff herself appears to be uncertain as to what the position is. The court also noted that a tracing agent was appointed to try and locate the husband. But no tracing report was issued to the court.
“No information is given as to which friends and family members were approached and why it may be that the defendant would abscond, with no warning to any of his friends or family, or any subsequent contact. In contrast, should the defendant have died, that may explain why there has been no such contact,” the court said.
It added that this is of course speculative, but that is because inadequate evidence has been placed before it on this aspect.
It said the consequences of the defendant having died rather than having absconded are distinctly different.
“Should the defendant have died, then the marriage would have been dissolved by death and a divorce order cannot be granted.”
The matter was removed from the roll to enable the wife to place more details before the court, as it could not make an order as the whereabouts and circumstances of the husband are unclear at this stage.