The court considered the argument that a wife’s maintenance pending suit should be limited to her reasonable needs: ‘I do not accept that argument for the following reasons. The purpose of the 1970 Act was to change statutory provisions that were outdated and inadequate and to make a new start. Although the word ‘maintenance’ was used in both SS1 and 6 of 1970 Act (now SS22 and 27 of the MCA 1973) there are changes between section 6 of the 1970 Act (section 27 of the MCA 1973 and its predecessors and the word ‘maintenance’ is not used in the predecessors to section 1 of the 1970 Act (section 22 of the MCA 1973). The subsequent amendments to section 27 of the MCA 1973 confirm or clarify that ‘maintenance’ was not used by Parliament to refer to the old common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife. The report (read alone and together with the Working Paper) supports the conclusion that ‘maintenance’ was not used by Parliament to refer to the old common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife.
(2003) 2 FCR 339
Cited – McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour CA 7-Jul-2004
Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198587