BD v FD (Maintenance)

Maintenance pending suit is an interim jurisdiction directed to immediate income needs which cannot await determination of the substantive financial claims. The governing criterion under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 22, is reasonableness, informed importantly by the marital standard of living but not limited to reproducing it. The court should use a specific interim budget, exclude capital and long-term expenditure, and scrutinise it for forensic exaggeration. Interim applications require a broad assessment and should proceed only where court intervention is manifestly required. Proportionality, expense and proper use of court resources are central. A spouse may be expected to use available resources to meet reasonable interim income needs where doing so causes no material prejudice to the longer-term claim.

The wife applied for maintenance pending suit during substantive financial remedy proceedings following the breakdown of a marriage involving substantial wealth and four children. She sought up to £392,000 annually for herself and the children. The husband offered global payments of £202,000 annually, including continuing payments and staff costs.

The wife argued that the family’s marital standard of living justified a higher award and that resources received from the husband should not be used for living expenses. The husband contended that the application was exaggerated, unnecessary and disproportionate. The central issues were the proper approach to immediate interim needs, the relevance of the marital standard of living, the use of available capital and the proportionality of the application.

1. Application dismissed in substance. The court ordered maintenance pending suit at the level proposed by the husband, namely £202,000 annually. That sum was within the bracket of reasonableness under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
2. The purpose of section 22 is to address immediate income needs which cannot await final determination. Capital and long-term expenditure are generally matters for the final hearing. An interim hearing should secure sufficient resources without prejudicing the applicant’s longer-term position.
3. Reasonableness is the sole statutory criterion and is synonymous with fairness. The marital standard of living is an important factor, but it is not an automatic ceiling or a requirement to replicate the status quo. A departure above that standard on an interim basis requires a specific and powerful justification.
4. An applicant should provide a specific maintenance pending suit budget excluding capital and long-term expenditure. The court must examine it critically and make a broad assessment, allowing for forensic exaggeration. The wife’s budget substantially exceeded the marital standard and contained such exaggeration.
5. Interim intervention should occur only where it is manifestly required. The overriding objective requires proportionality, economy and an appropriate allocation of court resources. Spending approximately £80,000 to £90,000 on an application involving a disputed annual difference of at most £190,000 was disproportionate.
6. The wife had sufficient resources, including investments, to meet reasonable interim income needs while receiving the husband’s proposed payments. Using part of those resources did not materially prejudice or disadvantage her longer-term position. The court therefore declined to err either on the side of generosity or parsimony and determined the reasonable sum by reference to her available resources.