'Reliable honest' husband who handed his wife, 51, all of his ready cash in a divorce 15 years ago is told he must up her maintenance after she blows the lot on 'unwise property investments'

• e-mail

A 'reliable' husband who gave his wife all of his 'liquid' money when they divorced 15 years ago must increase her maintenance payments because she has spent every penny on 'unwise property investments', a court has ruled. 

Part-time beautician Maria Mills, 51, received a £230,000 lump sum - along with £1,100 monthly maintenance payments - when she split from her husband Graham after 13 years of marriage.

But, since the divorce in 2002, Mrs Mills has invested the money 'unwisely' in a series of London properties, landing herself in debt because of her 'poor' decisions. 

'Reliable' husband Graham Mills (left) has been ordered to increase maintenance payments to his wife Maria (right) because she has spent every penny on 'unwise property investments'

Mr Mills argued he 'should not be the insurer against the wife's poor financial decisions', saying it was unfair that he should 'pick up the tab' years after they split.

But the businessman has now been ordered to increase Mrs Mills's monthly payments to £1,441 so she is 'able to meet her basic needs'.

Despite pleas from Mr Mills for his ex-wife to secure her own 'independence', a judge said her monthly outgoings equated to £1,441 and it was wrong for a previous judge to order lower payments. 

Sitting at London's Appeal Court, Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder heard how the couple, who have a grown-up son, married in 1988, before separating in 2001.

They divorced in 2002, after reaching an agreement on how their wealth should be split.

The court heard how Mr Mills, a surveyor, agreed to give his ex-wife £1,100 a month in personal maintenance.

He also offered to give her almost all their 'liquid capital', while he agreed to keep his businesses.

Later, however, Mrs Mills 'unwisely invested in a series of properties', each time 'moving upmarket' from a house in Weybridge, Surrey, to a smart three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon.

She then moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea.

The court heard how Mrs Mills 'over-financed' each of her homes, increasing her mortgage liabilities. But she failed to offset them with enough profit from the sale of the properties, the court heard. 

Mrs Mills 'unwisely invested in a series of properties', each time 'moving upmarket'. Her first home was this house in Weybridge, Surrey (pictured)

She then took out a bigger mortgage and moved to this three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon

She is now living in a rented home, back where she started in Weybridge, and works two days a week as a beauty therapist, the court heard.

The judge said the pair both went before a family judge last year, with the wife asking for more maintenance because she could not manage financially.

Her husband - who has since remarried and has another child with his new wife - went to judges in a bid to get a clean break, the court heard.

Judge Mark Everall QC - who heard the original case - threw out both their challenges, but both parties then each instructed QCs to renew their battle before the Court of Appeal. 

Philip Cayford QC, for Mr Mills, told the judges that he is desperate to 'move on' with his life and that a decision in favour of Mrs Mills went against 'the tide towards seeking independence'.

'This is a case where the wife leaves the marriage with all, or almost all the liquid capital, then says she needs maintenance for another 50 years, despite proving herself capable of working to a high standard,' he said.

Mrs Mills later moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea (pictured)

'It is the husband's case that he should not be the insurer against the wife's poor financial decisions, taken over the course of the 15 years that have passed since the original ancillary relief order.

'The time is long overdue for the wife to terminate her financial dependency on the husband.

'Since 2002, the wife's management of her finances has been so poor that she appears to have exhausted her entire capital, and seeks to continue and now increase the periodical payments element of the order.'

He added: 'The husband has done all that could be reasonably expected of him in his reasonable wish to move on post-divorce.' 

But Frank Feehan QC, for Mrs Mills, pointed out that the original judge did not find Mrs Mills was 'profligate or wanton in her approach to her finances.'

Although she was 'not a good businesswoman' and 'did not manage her finances wisely', the judge accepted that her finances and ability to work had been 'hindered' by health problems. 

Mr Feehan also defended Mrs Mills's 'credit card debts, run up over many years as a single parent having health difficulties'.

Asking for an increase in maintenance, he said Mrs Mills is currently 'unable to meet her basic needs'. 

Sir Ernest, giving the court's ruling, said Mr Mills had been regarded as 'reliable, truthful and frank' by Judge Everall, who had been 'less impressed with the wife.' 

Referring to Mrs Mills, he said: 'She had unwisely invested in a series of properties, each time moving upmarket, with the consequence that she is now without any of the capital she was given in 2002.

'She is not a good businesswoman. The wife now says the judge left her unable to meet her basic needs,' he added.

Judge Everall had calculated the wife's 'needs' at £1,441 a month, but had gone on to order that her monthly maintenance should not be increased from £1,100.

But Sir Ernest said that 'shortfall' was unexplained and left Mrs Mills out of pocket. 

'He concluded that the wife would not be able to move towards independence,' he said.

'It is impossible for the court to ascertain how the £341 a month difference was to be saved by the wife. He didn't make the findings to justify the lower figure,' he added.  

'The judge made an error of principle. The order should have been that the husband pay maintenance in the sum of £1,441 a month until further order of the court.

'The husband has and had the ability to make the maintenance payments asked for.'

No value was put on Mr Mills's business interests, but the court was told that he had previously been able to draw dividends from them of up to £200,000 a year.