Facebook Baby Shower Shames Husband, Costs Wife Half of R2.3m Pension in Divorce Ruling

A mother's enthusiasm to publicise her baby shower with a posting on Facebook ultimately cost her half of her husband's R2.3m pension fund benefits.

That determination was made at the Gauteng High Court recently, in response to the application made by the husband to have her portion of his pension payout, upon divorce, forfeited.

The husband was incensed when he got wind of the post and Judge Noluntu Bam, who presided over the matter, believed that the post would have humiliated the man.

During proceedings it emerged that the wife had another child—her third—with someone else, following a romantic relationship that also involved a friend of her husband.

It was not clearly established from court proceedings and the ruling who the father of the child was.

After realising that his wife had been in an extra-marital affair, the husband kicked her out of ther marital home, and the news of the baby shower still came as a shock.

When the matter came before the court, both parties agreed to the divorce.

The only issue to be decided was whether the wife should forfeit the R2.3 million benefit arising from the husband’s pension fund. The parties were married in community of property in January 2011.

In August 2024, the wife issued a divorce summons seeking a division of the joint estate. They agreed that the joint estate be divided equally amongst them, apart from the husband’s pension. He asked for an order that the wife forfeit this benefit, citing substantial misconduct on her part.

The parties have not lived together as husband and wife since 2020. Only the husband testified during the divorce, stating that while they were together, she was engaged in a romantic relationship with his friend.

When he discovered this, he chased her away from the marital home as he found the situation intolerable. According to the husband, the wife did not work during their marriage, and he was responsible for the family’s financial needs.

He was questioned about an alleged extramarital relationship he had during the marriage with another woman, which he denied, including claims that he fathered a child with this woman.

Counsel for the wife further questioned him about a mediation session held at the marital home where a relative had been asked to mediate. It is claimed that his alleged girlfriend was present during the family meeting. While confirming the mediation session, the husband explained that the woman was simply a friend who lived in the same area.

Judge Noluntu Bam stated she had no reason to doubt the credibility of the husband. “His answers did not strike me as far-fetched. He spoke candidly about the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of his marriage.” While the wife did not testify, she called a family member as a witness, who the judge remarked had nothing more to add to the matter.

In deciding whether the wife would unduly benefit if she were allowed half of her husband’s pension, Judge Bam noted that while the husband was responsible for the family’s financial needs, it does not mean that the wife made no contribution to the marriage.

“There is a whole system that runs in the background to make most family homes stable. In most instances, the management and coordination of these activities reside with the party who stays at home,” she said.

The judge added that, to the wife’s credit, without her testimony, the court is prepared to accept that as a mother who stayed at home, she was responsible for the upkeep of the family home, supporting the defendant and the children in their daily life. However, Judge Bam acknowledged that the relationship broke down due to the wife’s involvement in an extramarital relationship with the husband’s friend.

Ultimately, Judge Bam regarded the wife’s actions as misconduct, stating, “I regard as misconduct not only the plaintiff’s (wife) involvement with a third party but the act of procreating with a third party and then publicising the birth by posting messages of her baby shower on Facebook. That must have humiliated the defendant (husband),” the judge concluded.

She accordingly granted an order that the wife forfeit her share of the husband’s pension.

DAILY NEWS