Cape Town - A Kraaifontein man has won a High Court battle to relinquish his parental rights after discovering he was not the biological father of his daughter. He had been paying maintenance for years.
The judgment by Judge James Dumisani Lekhuleni revealed how the man had discovered the truth of his ex-wife’s extramarital affair on WhatsApp. In the application, the father, who is unnamed to protect the child, sought relief from the court after paternity tests revealed the truth.
According to the court documents, the couple were married in 2012 and in 2017 their daughter was born.
After 10 years of marriage the couple separated and a divorce decree was issued.
As part of the divorce settlement, it was decided the child would live with her mother and the father, who works as a local guard for the US Embassy in Pakistan would pay R7500 in maintenance each month.
The father later discovered that he was not the biological father when he found WhatsApp texts between his former wife and a man only identified as “Mr MW”, where he told the mother to “please look after my little girl”.
The judgment outlines that the extra marital affair took place when the father was working abroad. After discovering the text messages he underwent two paternity tests.
It further states that when the blood tests were served on the mother, she did not file answering affidavits to the court application and did not pitch for the hearing at the Western Cape High Court.
“In my view, on the facts placed before this court, it is abundantly clear that the respondent knew all along that the applicant was not the father of the child but decided to conceal this information from the applicant.
“Her communication with Mr MW clearly demonstrates that she knew that the applicant was not the child’s father. In addition, her WhatsApp communication with Mr MW accords with the scientific test results, excluding the applicant as the father of the child. Ostensibly, the respondent hid this information from the applicant to receive maintenance from him. In my view, the respondent’s conduct appears to be a paternity fraud.
“The applicant has no legal duty to maintain the child. He should not be saddled with the responsibility of paying child maintenance, as the child is not his.
“In my view, the applicant’s application for the termination of his parental responsibilities and rights, as outlined in the settlement agreement, should be granted.”
Cape Argus