Cape Town Woman Wins Right To Raise Husband’s Same-Sex Affairs In Divorce Case

A Cape Town woman embroiled in a lengthy divorce battle has been allowed to amend her court papers and raise allegations about her husband’s alleged sexual relationships with men.

However, the Western Cape High Court ordered her to remove several allegations it considered repetitive, inflammatory or unnecessarily detailed.

The woman, identified as M.P., sought permission to substantially rewrite her defence and counterclaim against her husband, J.P.

Acting Judge Greig ruled that she should be allowed to present the central aspects of her case during the divorce trial, IOL reveals.

Also Read: Husband Seeks R4,500 Maintenance From Wife For Baby Born Outside Marriage, Court Says No

Marriage Collapsed After Nearly Three Decades

The couple married in January 1993 under the accrual system and have two children.

J.P. initiated divorce proceedings in August 2021, initially claiming that the couple had gradually grown apart.

M.P. accepted that the marriage had broken down irretrievably when she responded in February 2022.

However, she disputed her husband’s account of how the breakdown occurred.

She claimed he had abruptly told her that he no longer wanted to remain married and planned to take a year-long sabbatical.

Several years later, after changing legal representatives twice, M.P. sought to replace her original defence and counterclaim.

Her new version presented a significantly different account of the marriage.

Wife Raises Allegations About Husband

In her amended pleadings, M.P. alleged that her husband had long preferred men and had relationships with men dating back to the early 2000s.

She claimed his alleged conduct contributed to the eventual collapse of their marriage.

The husband strongly opposed the amendments, particularly because they were being introduced almost four years after the divorce proceedings began.

He argued that his wife’s new case represented a major departure from her original version.

Judge Greig acknowledged that the proposed amendments changed the nature of the case.

However, the judge found M.P.’s explanation for the delay sufficiently credible to allow the essential allegations to proceed.

Emotional Impact Cited

M.P. told the court that previous lawyers had advised her to rely on conventional grounds commonly used in divorce matters.

She said her latest legal team later advised her that her husband’s alleged conduct could be relevant when the court considers maintenance under the Divorce Act.

The woman also described the subject matter as emotionally difficult.

She said her conservative and religious background made it difficult to discuss what she described as years of humiliation.

M.P. said she had also tried to protect her children, relatives and wider community from the details of the troubled marriage.

The judge found little reason to dismiss her explanation at the amendment stage.

Greig also rejected the suggestion that alleged misconduct from many years earlier could not have contributed to the marriage’s eventual breakdown simply because the couple remained married.

The judge noted that people can remain in unhappy marriages for many years.

Court Says Conduct Can Be Relevant

A major question was whether allegations about a spouse’s conduct and sexual relationships remain legally relevant in a no-fault divorce system.

The husband argued that such allegations should have no bearing on the proceedings.

The court disagreed.

Greig referred to section 7(2) of the Divorce Act, which permits courts to consider the parties’ conduct when determining spousal maintenance if that conduct is relevant to the breakdown of the marriage.

The judge acknowledged ongoing debate about whether fault should influence maintenance decisions.

However, Parliament has not removed the relevant provision from the legislation.

This meant M.P. could rely on relevant allegations as part of her maintenance case.

Judge Removes Excessive Allegations

Although M.P. was granted permission to amend her pleadings, the court criticised the way her proposed counterclaim had been drafted.

The document contained 50 allegations, many involving her husband’s alleged sexuality, suspected relationships and intimate aspects of their marriage.

Some claims were presented as suspicions rather than established facts.

The court found that several allegations went beyond what was necessary to explain the wife’s case.

Judge Greig ordered that numerous paragraphs be removed.

These included repeated claims about explicit requests, allegations that the husband had failed to deny being gay or bisexual, and claims based solely on suspicion.

The judge also removed language considered inflammatory rather than factual.

Court Draws Line At “Full Flood” Of Detail

Greig stressed that court pleadings should provide the essential outline of a case.

They should not become lengthy accounts of every incident or private interaction between the parties.

The court nevertheless allowed M.P. to retain allegations that directly addressed the condition of the marriage and her husband’s alleged conduct.

The ruling means the woman can present the core of her case at trial while preventing the proceedings from becoming a platform for unnecessary or degrading accusations.

The judge said the amendments would allow the couple’s genuine dispute to be properly heard while removing material that crossed into harassment.