IN late November 2013, businessman-cum-politician Phillip Chiyangwa was embroiled in a messy divorce saga with his wife Elizabeth, who demanded 85% share of the couple’s wealth and $83 000 per month as maintenance.
Lizzy Kutyauripo
The same fate also befell former Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai who was sued for $15 000 a month by his ex-wife Locardia Karimatsenga Tembo, a matter he later settled out of court.
Though lawyers from both parties could not disclose the settlement details, there was speculation that the amount ranged between $280 000 and $300 000.
Chiyangwa and Tsvangirai’s cases are no different from other messy divorce cases prominent individuals have gone through exposing them to the public limelight.
Another classic example is of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing minister Ignatius Chombo who had his vast wealth exposed following his estranged wife Marian Chombo’s demand for maintenance.
Marian demanded a farm, luxury vehicles including upmarket properties as well as huge monthly payments.
Sungura king Alick Macheso’s estranged wife Tafadzwa Mapako has also filed a $7 000 maintenance claim at the civil courts for the upkeep of their two minor children and herself.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
She rejected Macheso’s $1 250 monthly maintenance offer for herself and their two children arguing that it could not sustain the lifestyle he introduced to her and the children.
Through her lawyer David Ngwerume, Mapako wrote to Macheso rejecting the proposal that he had tabled as a temporary arrangement pending paternity tests.
“Following your letter dated Wednesday April 23, our client instructs us that she is not accepting your interim maintenance proposal as it does not meet the needs thereof. The proposal is a fallacy as it does not conform to the lifestyle that your client introduced [to] her and the children and that the negotiations are not yielding anything towards settlement,” read the demand letter.
There are, however, thousands of other such cases involving ordinary men away from the public gaze who have been dragged to the courts by bitter ex-partners demanding a share of their “wealth” – regardless of the “peanuts” they earn as maintenance settlement.
Greed, vengeance fuel ‘outrageous’ demands
SOME divorced women often claim outrageous amounts in maintenance, some of which do not even tally with the men’s earnings.
Women who spoke to NewsDay confessed that those whose relationship would have broken down often used the issue of maintenance to “fix” the men who would have unceremoniously jilted them.
Tukai Nyandoro (35) said sometimes this would be a fair demand considering that the woman would have given the men priceless children and that had to be appreciated.
“We tend to claim an exorbitant amounts out of vengeance and spite,” she said. “The thought that the man would go and marry another woman so often [makes] us want to fix him. Besides, I can claim a huge amount of money because I am not a child-bearing machine. I should enjoy the fruits [children] of my own labour.”
Revai Chirwa (30) echoed Nyandoro’s sentiments and added that making huge demands was often a tactic to ensure that when the court eventually slashes down the figure, at least the woman will end up with a reasonable amount.
“Women sometimes tend to claim higher fees because in the end the amount is reduced to a very low figure, so it is better to aim very higher and later settle for a bit less or better fees,” she said.
“If the man is rich, then he must pay. The cost of living is very high and it is very expensive when you look at needs such as food, medical bills, clothing and rentals. Besides, it depends entirely on what was the reason for the divorce.”
Another woman who declined to be named said some men denied the responsibility over their children, but would spoil their new wives’ or girlfriends’ children.
Men cry foul over ‘gold diggers’
MEN, however, labelled women who demanded high amounts of money for maintenance gold diggers who were now taking their claims as business transactions rather than a way of ensuring that their children accessed the basics in life.
“We are not saying we must not maintain our own children, but these women must not claim ridiculous amounts as if we will be doing business together; the money is mainly for the children’s upkeep not their personal needs and new boyfriends,” Takesure Zuze (40) said.
He added that the women often used the money for things other than the welfare of the children upon whose basis the courts would have granted their demand for huge amounts of money in maintenance.
“In most cases it is very evident that these women will not be needing money for the children’s upkeep, but rather their own extras which they use to entertain their new “catch”, that is business and I hate people who use children to get what they want,” said Zuze.
Irene Saka (39) admitted that sometimes the money would be too high especially given the children’s age ranges and concurred with other women that the element of spiting the man could not be ruled out.
“Sometimes it is just too much; we are not saying women must not claim for maintenance, but imagine this scenario where the husband earns $800 and the woman claims $500 for a two-year child. If they were still living together would they spend the same amount on the child,” Saka said.
“It is an act of asking the ex-husband for payback for the ex-husband would have moved on and will not want anything to do with the woman. The woman would be determined enough to spite the ex-husband wanting to see how he will make it through with his new wife.”
Status determines claims ACCORDING to a NewsDay survey, a high number of women were suing their ex-husbands for maintenance fees ranging from $800 to $3 000.
These figures depend on whether the ex-husband is a businessman or has an executive job that pays well. The ordinary men were being sued for between $300 to $600 which was often more than they earned.
Some of the claimed fees were just, but too ridiculous as in most cases the women found it hard to support their claims, hence the question posed to the reader is: “Does the money cater for the child’s upkeep or for personal benefit driven by greedy and bling?”
Is it an act of laziness or spite let alone revenge as the men proved to be victims of circumstances?
70% of men tricked on paternity
Recent reports showed that many men could be supporting other people’s children amid reports that about 70% of maintenance cases referred for DNA paternity tests in Harare last year tested negative. The reports said the tests proved that nearly three-quarters of men who challenged paternity of the children they were maintaining won their cases.
Maintenance cases on the rise
AT least 50 men appear at the Harare Civil Court for maintenance hearings daily, according to court records. An estimated 14 000 maintenance files were opened in 2012 up from 3 040 in 2011, 2 174 in 2010 and a paltry 427 in 2008.
Magistrates often had to tell the women not to use the courts to settle scores, but to ask for “reasonable” amounts within the reach of the men to ensure that children accessed what they deserved. “The money you seek when you come here is for the upkeep of the child and not for your personal luxury. After all, both parents have to contribute in taking care of the child, even the one filing for maintenance,” one magistrate was quoted saying. Civil courts work extremely hard to deal with numerous divorces, maintenance orders, protection and peace order applications as well as small claims suits.
