Is a wealthy family liable to maintain a person after separation?

Separation is a difficult process and for many it is made even more difficult due to the fact that the financial support once received from their former spouse has ceased.

The law provides that a party to a marriage (or defect relationship) has a duty to support and maintain the other party if the other party is unable to support themselves and if the supporting party is reasonably able to do so.

But what does 'reasonably able to do so' mean? What if the supporting party comes from a wealthy family and it was that family's wealth that allowed you to live comfortably throughout the marriage in the first place?

In a recent Federal Circuit Court Case, a woman has lost her bid to have her husband's extremely wealthy family keep her in style after the divorce. The Husband was described as being a member of a family of well known prominent businesses people and philanthropists in Melbourne.

While married to the husband, the wife was the beneficiary of the generosity of the husband's wealthy family, and there was no doubt the parties lived a very comfortable life. The parties smilingly owned no property or shares together and had no money in the bank.

The husband told the Court that his only assets were his $8,000 motor vehicle and superannuation in the sum of $39,000. He also disclosed that he was earning income of about $100,000 per annum plus an annual gift of $50,000 from his mother.

On her Application, the wife sought Orders for the husband to buy her a house (with a minimum of three bedrooms and a sufficient area for the children and dog) and a $40,000 car. She also wanted her husband to transfer all his superannuation entitlements to her and pay the rates, bills and school fees.

In an effort to settle the 3 year long dispute, the husband offered to pay the wife's rent of $950 a week plus utilities except phone bill until 2024. He also offered to sell the car and give her the money as well as transfer all of his superannuation entitlements to her.

The Court described this offer as 'extremely generous' and held that a wealthy family is not responsible for keeping a wife in comfort after the marriage ends.