Note: where the term “spouse” is used in this blog it also encompasses “civil partners”.
Spousal Maintenance or maintenance for a spouse sometimes called periodical payments remains one of the most unpredictable aspects of the resolution of financial matters at the end of a marriage.
It is easy to see where spousal maintenance is not going to be a feature of the case, where both spouses are working and able to financially support themselves. However, for situations where perhaps one party has not worked for a long period or has a much lower paying job than the other then the issue of spousal maintenance may be raised.
The concept of spousal maintenance has deep historical roots, originating from the husband’s duty to financially support his wife and back to a time when it was difficult (if not impossible) for women to be financially independent. Over time, this obligation has evolved into a more gender-neutral framework reflecting societal changes and the principle of equality. The fact that it is often a female spouse who is claiming spousal maintenance is due to the gendered roles assumed by the parties in the marriage and not due to any bias in the law.
The ethical basis for long-term maintenance remains a topic of debate. The case of SS v. NS is one of the key pieces of case law in this area. In that case the imposition of maintenance obligations after divorce raises questions about fairness and the extent to which financial ties should persist perhaps long after divorce. These considerations underscore the need for ongoing judicial and legislative scrutiny to ensure that the law on spousal maintenance aligns with contemporary values.
Spousal maintenance is a critical aspect of family law and perhaps one of the most interesting as the courts evolve their approach to balancing fairness, financial independence and the needs of divorcing parties. To understand the current state of the law, let’s have a look at the legal principles underpinning the courts’ decisions.
Spousal Maintenance Law
In England and Wales, the family court relies on a discretionary checklist under the key legislation – the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to determine all aspects of a financial dispute between spouses. The key factors include:
- Duration of the marriage. Longer marriages often result in higher or longer-term awards due to the greater financial interdependence developed over the passage of time.
- Presence of children. The needs of dependent children are a significant consideration often influencing the financial obligations of both parties.
- The claimant’s needs and resources. Courts assess the claimant’s financial needs by way of a budget produced by the claimant setting out their monthly or annual financial needs. These will include set things such as a mortgage or rent and utility bills but also more discretionary items such as clothes, holidays or Christmas. The court will also compare this with the same information from the potential payer of spousal maintenance to assess their ability to meet the claimant’s needs. The court will also assess the reasonableness of the items set out in the budget. It is here that a high degree of judicial discretion makes predicting the outcome of an application for spousal maintenance challenging,
- Marital Standard of Living. While not decisive, the court will consider the standard of living enjoyed in the marriage as the context for assessing the reasonableness of the parties’ budgets.
This structured approach ensures that awards are tailored to the unique circumstances of each case. This is why obtaining expert legal advice is vital if you are claiming or defending a claim of spousal maintenance.
How it Works
The cornerstone of maintenance awards remains the needs-based approach. In a divorce, the spouses have no right to a share of the future income of their former spouse. Any claim for spousal maintenance is focused on addressing financial needs that arise from decisions made during the marriage. The recent case of Waggott v. Waggott in the Court of Appeal clarified that maintenance awards are justified only where relationship-generated needs exist.
There are some rare exceptions to the needs-based approach such as compensation for career sacrifices made during the marriage. These need compelling evidence to persuade a court to make an award and do not apply to the vast majority of cases. The principle here is that spousal maintenance is not a tool for equalising financial outcomes but a mechanism to address genuine financial need that cannot be met through independence.
The court has a duty to consider where a “clean break” can be made and make one wherever possible. A “clean break” occurs when no spousal maintenance is ordered. A significant trend in recent judicial guidance is the emphasis on transitioning the recipient of spousal maintenance to financial independence. Whilst the court has the power to make a maintenance order which only ends with the death of one of the parties, it is very rare for them to do so nowadays. Courts increasingly favour making “term” orders when making spousal maintenance orders. “Term” orders are those which stay in place for a set time. The principle is to encourage the recipient of spousal maintenance towards self-sufficiency within a reasonable timeframe. The court is satisfied that this may cause some degree of hardship, but this can be seen by the court as acceptable during a transition where the overarching goal is to limit long-term financial dependency.
This shift reflects a modern approach to spousal maintenance, balancing the claimant’s needs with the payer’s ability to provide the support. Courts aim to ensure fairness to both parties recognising the importance of promoting autonomy and reducing prolonged financial ties.
As family law continues to adapt to modern realities, spousal maintenance remains a vital tool for achieving fairness and equity in divorce proceedings. By balancing the claimant’s needs with the payer’s resources, courts strive to deliver outcomes that are just, reasonable, and reflective of the unique circumstances of each case.
