Businessman’s financial troubles fail to sway judge in AUD700,000 divorce battle

A Harare businessman who sought to ease the burden of an AUD700,000 divorce settlement has been told that claims of declining business fortunes are not enough to rewrite a binding court order without financial evidence to back them up.

Justice Fatima Maxwell dismissed an application by Shahid Siddiqui to restructure the outstanding settlement owed to his former wife, Marina Pamela Siddiqui, ruling that he had failed to demonstrate a substantial change in his financial circumstances since agreeing to the payment terms.

Siddiqui wanted to pay the outstanding amount in monthly instalments of AUD15,000, arguing that a downturn in the operations of his company, Property World (Pvt) Ltd, had made it difficult to honour the original arrangement without suffering severe financial prejudice.

But the judge said the businessman had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that his financial position had deteriorated since the agreement was concluded in March 2024.

“Applicant has not demonstrated any major change in the operating environment within the two years following the execution of the consent paper,” Justice Maxwell ruled.

The case highlights the difficulties facing parties who seek to renegotiate court-approved financial settlements after committing themselves to specific payment obligations.

Under a High Court order granted on June 7, 2024, Siddiqui was required to pay AUD700,000 to his former wife in full and final settlement of her proprietary claims arising from their divorce.

He told the court that he had already paid AUD342,519 but could no longer sustain the original payment schedule because of changing business conditions.

However, the financial records he presented did not convince the judge that his circumstances had materially changed.

Siddiqui submitted management accounts for Property World covering only five months to May 31, 2026, without providing comparable figures from the period when he entered into the settlement.

“There was no comparative analysis to be done because the earlier position was not before me,” Justice Maxwell said.

The judge noted that Siddiqui had also failed to provide figures showing his business performance, projected revenue or income when he agreed to the settlement.

“He was content to say his financial circumstances have materially and substantially changed. That change was not demonstrated by numbers,” the judge said.

The court also took issue with the businessman’s failure to explain the financial position of seven private companies in which he retained shares under the divorce settlement.

Although his application concentrated on Property World, Siddiqui did not adequately explain the value or financial implications of his interests in the other companies.

“Applicant’s silence in relation to the rest of the companies is therefore held against him as an indicator of lack of probity,” Justice Maxwell ruled.

His former wife opposed the application, arguing that he was already in arrears of AUD138,334 on an instalment that fell due on June 7, 2026.

She accused him of effectively changing the payment arrangements without her consent or an order authorising the variation.

Although she was not opposed to monthly payments in principle, she maintained that the full annual instalment had to be paid by June 7 each year.

Siddiqui’s proposal would have resulted in annual payments of AUD180,000, below the agreed annual instalment of AUD183,344.

He told the court that he had been consistently paying AUD15,000 monthly since March 2026 as evidence of his commitment to settling the debt.

But Justice Maxwell said a desire to change an inconvenient financial commitment did not, by itself, justify judicial intervention.

“It seems the applicant is regretting having committed himself to such a payment schedule. Regret without good cause is not enough,” the judge said.

The application was brought under Section 9 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which empowers the courts to vary, suspend or rescind certain orders where good cause is established.

Siddiqui and Marina married on March 23, 2021, before entering into the settlement agreement during their divorce proceedings. He signed the consent paper on March 24, 2024, after his former wife had signed it.

He approached the High Court for a variation on June 9, 2026, but failed to persuade the court that his financial circumstances justified changing the existing order.

The dismissal leaves the original settlement terms intact.

The post Businessman’s financial troubles fail to sway judge in AUD700,000 divorce battle appeared first on NewZimbabwe.com.