DOBBEL OR NOTHING
Man wanted wife to lose half her assets in divorce over gambling
A husband wanted his divorcing wife to lose her half of their joint estate, claiming that she gambled their money away.
Image: Pexels
IN A lelike divorce case, a husband approached the Western Cape High Court seeking an order for his wife to forfeit her share of their joint assets because of her dobbeling.
He alleged that she has squandered millions of rand accumulated over the years on gambling. In response, the wife contends that her gambling was merely for entertainment purposes and insists that she only wagered small amounts on the activity.
The wife turned to the court to obtain a divorce from her husband, a medical doctor, and she asked that their estate be divided equally, as they are married in community of property.
The husband, in a counterclaim, asked that because of her gambling, she either forfeited her half or a portion of the joint assets.
While the wife alleged abuse by her husband for the break-up of the marriage, the husband, in turn, said it was because of her “compulsive gambling addiction".
The wife conceded that she started gambling socially around 2012 when her son turned three and was at school.
At that point, she had won about R4 000 from the R500 her mother had given her.
She could not give a definitive figure of the amounts gambled over time in total.
According to the husband, the gambling losses ran into millions of rands. He testified that his wife would be unduly benefited if she were to receive half of the joint estate, given her conduct and limited contribution to the growth of their joint estate.
She admitted taking money from the business she ran to fund her gambling habits. She said she used her winnings towards household expenses.
The husband’s evidence was that his wife’s gambling has resulted in significant financial losses to the joint estate. He said she withdrew and gambled substantial sums from the joint accounts and the business accounts.
He said “one cannot claim or get what they do not deserve or work for".
The court found that there is not a basis for a court to order forfeiture.
The court said: “The evidence which this court accepts is that both spouses, to a greater and lesser extent, gambled or alternatively tended to go to gambling areas."