Ministerial official in R40,000 child maintenance battle - TimesLIVE

A top official in women, youth & persons with disabilities minister Sindisiwe Chikunga’s ministry is appealing an interim court order that he cough up R40,000 in monthly maintenance for his two children.

The official, whose take-home pay is alleged to be more than R170,000 a month, spends up to R21,000 a month on restaurants and takeaways, according to papers filed in the Johannesburg high court. But he says he can’t afford the maintenance payments.

He and his estranged wife may not be named to protect the identity of their children.

The interim maintenance order, made by the high court last November, kicked in on December 1. However, the adviser’s wife claims he only made one payment.

She claims he told her that he couldn’t make the full monthly payment, as he had to pay R17,000 in monthly instalments for his BMW and could therefore only contribute R23,165 to the children’s expenses.

In February, he appealed the interim order. He maintains in his heads of argument that it should be set aside, arguing that his circumstances should be properly assessed by the maintenance court.

He says any concerns about affordability can be addressed through court proceedings. “At best, the applicant’s complaint is that he cannot afford the maintenance order,” reads his heads of argument.

The couple separated at the end of July 2025. His wife acknowledges in her submission to the court that her husband continued contributing towards the children after the separation but alleges that he reduced his contributions towards the end of October, leaving her struggling to meet their expenses.

She calculates the children’s monthly expenses at R116,588, of which she says her husband’s share should be R70,401. She bases the figure on the fact that he earns significantly more than she does.

According to her calculations, his proposed contribution of R24,149 leaves a monthly shortfall of R46,251.

The wife, a professional who holds a top job, is asking the court to grant a permanent order directing him to pay a minimum amount of R40,000 should it find that he is not financially liable for R70,000.

In her affidavit, she says she earns half the amount he does and argues that their respective financial means should be taken into account when determining their contributions towards the children’s maintenance.

“The respondent’s own figures, when measured against the children’s actual expenses, reveal a glaring shortfall that cannot be ignored,” she states.

These figures are her calculations presented in the litigation and have not been established as judicial findings.

A central point of contention is the family home in Sandton, which the wife describes as the children’s primary residence. She argues that its running costs should form part of the maintenance calculation because the property provides the children with accommodation and stability.

She says expenses include water, electricity, rates, refuse removal, insurance and therapy.

“These are not optional luxuries but essential costs of providing the children with a home, stability and proper care,” she states.

The affidavit also challenges her husband’s financial disclosures.

She says that his monthly departmental salary is R123,695, supplemented by allowances of about R46,821. She claims his bank statements reflect additional, undisclosed income averaging R71,075 a month, bringing his estimated average monthly income to R241,591.96. She argues that the figures demonstrate that he has substantially greater financial means than he has disclosed to the court.

She disputes several of the household expenses he allegedly claimed, including R52,000 a month for accommodation and R4,000 for petrol for an au pair he employs.

She describes these expenses as inflated and unsupported, arguing that he provided no lease agreement or proof of payment for the accommodation. She also says the bank statements reflect lower fuel spending and suggests the au pair expense was manufactured to reduce his disposable income.

She also points to his restaurant and takeaway transactions reflected in the bank statements, which she says amounted to R14,316 in September 2025 and R21,383 in October that year.

“His own records confirm he has the means but not the willingness to discharge his duty,” she alleges.

The financial dispute has also affected the children’s day-to-day expenses, according to her affidavit. The breakdown of costs for the children includes schooling, accommodation and extracurricular activities such as music, pottery, dance and gymnastics.

The wife also refers to outstanding costs for swimming and coding lessons and says her mother helps cover household expenses, including R9,010 monthly for groceries and R1,525 monthly for the children’s haircare.

She acknowledges that her husband made certain additional payments after her application was launched and that he requested details of extracurricular service providers and indicated that he would take responsibility for the school-fee debit order.

However, she argues that these steps do not resolve the alleged shortfall or answer questions about earlier payments.

“Maintenance cannot be paid in advance or selectively apportioned according to his preferences,” she states. “It must be consistent, adequate and directed toward the children’s actual needs.”

Approached for comment, the official told the Sunday Times: “Thank you for reaching out. I elect not to participate in this story. Please proceed as you see fit.”

His estranged wife could not be reached for comment. She did not respond to multiple calls sent over a week as well as a detailed WhatsApp message.