A divorced husband should not have to increase payments to his ex-wife as a result of her 'poor financial decisions', as ruled by the Supreme Court in a landmark case.

The case of Mr and Mrs Mills

Mr and Mrs Mills divorced in 2002 after 15 years of marriage. Mrs Mills received £230,000, to purchase a mortgage-free property, and monthly maintenance of £1,100.

After several bad financial decisions, including taking on a mortgage to enable her to purchase a bigger property, Mrs Mills found herself in rented accommodation and in debt and subsequently asked Mr Mills for an increase in maintenance. It worth noting that following the divorce, Mrs Mills continued to work part-time, while Mr Mills worked full time.

The Court of Appeal awarded Mrs Mills an increase of £341 per month, which the Supreme Court retracted, reinstating the original amount of £1,100. Although the ruling was in Mr Mills' favour, he later commented that it felt like a 'hollow victory' as he would need to continue to pay the original maintenance sum.

What next?

There have been many comments about the change in approach by the courts to maintenance and whether it means "the end to a meal ticket for life".

Mr Mills has now been paying maintenance for 15 years - as long as he was married to Mrs Mills - and must continue to do so until further order or agreement that it be discharged. It is likely therefore that Mr Mills will apply to capitalise maintenance, so he no longer has an ongoing responsibility to pay maintenance each month, but it will be a matter of watching this space to see what happens next.