Purba v Purba: CA 1 Jul 1999

The court considered an appeal against an award in an ancillary relief case on divorce. The husband had it was thought deliberately hidden assets, but the husband claimed that the wife’s budget was excessive. Thorpe LJ said: ‘I see no force in the criticism of the judge’s acceptance of the wife’s budget. In this field of litigation budgets prepared by the parties often have a high degree of unreality – usually the applicant wife’s budget is much inflated. Most unusually, in this case the wife’s budget seems to have been rather understated in many respects. It is true that one of the major items on the budget was substantial monthly expenditure for rent or mortgage. It is true that that could be said to be a superfluous item once the substantial lump sum was ordered. But the essential task of the judge is not to go through these budgets item by item but stand back and ask, what is the appropriate proportion of the husband’s available income that should go to the support of the wife? This was a husband with pounds 66,000 a year gross, pounds 50,000 a year net, and of that available net income it simply could not be contended that pounds 14,400 a year for his wholly dependent wife was excessive.’
Stuart-Smith LJ, Pil LJ, Thorpe LJ
[1999] EWCA Civ 1730, [2000] 1 FLR 444, [2000] 1 FCR 652, [2000] Fam Law 86
England and Wales
See AlsoPurba v Purba CA 15-Jan-1999
Application for leave to appeal against award in ancillary relief case – granted. . .

Cited by:
CitedM v M (Financial Relief: Substantial Earning Capacity) FD 29-Mar-2004
The parties had been married for 12 years, there were three children, one with special needs, and assets of over 12 million pounds. The court considered the application for ancillary relief. It was substantially agreed that the wife should receive . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.146645