“What does a court assess in determining how much spousal maintenance to award in divorce proceedings?”
CASE:
BRIEF FACTS:
- MAT (Husband) and KAT (Wife), aged 64 and 63 respectively, were married in August 1987 and KAT filed for judicial separation in April 2022 and then MAT filed for divorce in September 2024.
- They were both involved in mutual business ventures, herein anonymised as BCS and BHS.
- While waiting for the trial of the divorce proceedings KAT filed an application in Court seeking a monthly interim maintenance of RM 3 million citing her previous lifestyle and alleged financial dependency due to what KAT claimed was a court order that prevented her from dealing with her assets.
- KAT further claimed that MAT’s actions led to her loss of income.
DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT (“HC”)
- The HC held that in determining whether KAT was entitled to spousal maintenance while waiting for the trial of the divorce proceedings, 2 factors needed to be look into:-
- The means and needs of the Parties; and
- The degree of responsibility each bore for the breakdown of the marriage.
- But because this was only an interim application for spousal maintenance the Court only looked at the means and needs of KAT.
- The HC found that that KAT had substantial independent income and assets, including properties in Malaysia, and America with rental and investments as income.
- HC stated that the restriction in the court order was not absolute, and that KAT could have applied for permission to deal with his assets, which she did not.
- Further, HC found that she had also started a new income generating business post separation.
- HC emphasised that the law does not guarantee preservation of an identical standard of living following separation or divorce, but instead is intended to ensure fairness.
- HC further added that spousal maintenance is meant to meet actual, proven needs, not to compensate for alleged employment losses or for a luxurious lifestyle.
- HC found that for a claim of this magnitude, there was no supporting documentation such as receipts, breakdown of expenses or evidence that shows the need for financial support.
- HC found this application opportunistic and cautioned against using divorce as a revenue-generating exercise.
- HC dismissed KAT’s application with costs.
Leave a Comment