Wife not obliged to support husband who chose to look after his elderly mother

In most financial remedy cases the primary issue is the financial needs of the parties, and how those needs are to be met post-divorce.

Thus, for example, if one party’s needs are greater than the other party’s needs, then they may receive a greater share of the matrimonial assets, in order to meet those needs. This would obviously mean that the other party receives less, effectively providing support for the party with greater needs.

But there are limits to the needs that the court will take into account. In particular, they are less likely to be taken into account if they arose after the marriage ended.

This point was demonstrated by a recent case that took place in the Family Court at Birmingham.

The case concerned a husband’s claim for financial remedy against the wife.

The relevant facts of the case were as follows.

The parties are both nationals of another country (referred to by the judge as “Country X”), although they had lived in England for many years, and indeed were married here.

The parties met in 2007 and cohabited from 2008. Their son was born in 2009, and they married in 2014. They separated in or around October or November 2022, when the husband left the former matrimonial home. The wife and child have lived there ever since.

At the time of separation both the husband and the wife worked as Light Goods Vehicle drivers. The husband’s gross income was about £49,000 per annum. The wife was earning about £34,000, but after the separation she worked overtime, and achieved a gross income of about £48,000.

The assets of the marriage were relatively modest. The matrimonial home was owned jointly, and had an equity of about £138,000. There were other assets worth about £50,000, although most of these were dissipated by the husband following the separation.

And it was the husband’s actions following the separation that characterised the case. He decided to give up his job and move back to Country X to look after his elderly mother.

This action of course drastically changed the husband’s needs, and the husband claimed that his need to look after his mother should be taken into account in the divorce settlement.

However, the judge was not prepared to take this need into account, as it arose following the end of the marriage. Moreover, if it was a need, it was one that could only reduce the husband’s obligations to meet the wife’s needs. It was not one that would increase the wife’s obligation to the husband. He said:

“The husband cannot place the burden of supporting his mother on the wife by giving up paid employment (as he has) and then suggesting that the wife should support him by way of either maintenance, which he is not seeking, or a lump sum, which he is. Any contribution from the wife can only be to meet the husband’s own needs as generated by the marriage. The husband cannot call for a greater contribution than might otherwise have been made by seeking to re-frame his mother’s needs as his own.”

In the circumstances the judge ordered that the wife pay the husband a lump sum of £6,500 (which, with a mortgage, would enable the husband to purchase a home for himself in Country X, if he chose to re-enter employment), and that the husband transfer his interest in the former matrimonial home to the wife.

The net effect of this order was to leave the husband with 32% of the assets, and the wife with 68%, reflecting the lower cost of the husband’s housing need in Country X, and the immediate needs of the wife and child for accommodation.

You can read the full report of the case here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Pixel-Shot / Shutterstock.com