A HUSBAND told by a court he must support his ex-wife "for life" despite their divorce 15 years ago says it is wrong they should be "tied together forever".
Maria Mills received a £230,000 payout in 2002 as well as £1,100 monthly personal maintenance payments when she split with "reliable and truthful" Graham Mills, 50, after 13 years.
But the 51-year-old estate agent spiralled into debt after "unwisely" investing in a number of upmarket properties in London in a bid to climb the housing ladder.
And after a two-year legal battle, the Court of Appeal has ruled in her favour, increasing the payments to £1,441 after she ran out of money and built up debts.
But her ex-husband has branded the decision "grossly unfair" and says it is wrong that divorced couples should be financially tied together for life.
Speaking to the Standard, he said: "I don’t think it’s a good message to send to men or women.
“I don’t think it’s right that after divorce you should be tied together forever. I don’t think you can move on mentally or physically with that tie in place.
“I feel like I am paying for her mismanagement of finances.
“I’m angry and frustrated the system allows this to happen."
What the properties are worth now…
Maria Mills purchased three properties over the years, and here's what they'd be worth now based on average propety prices…
- Weybridge, Surrey: £639,000
- Battersea, central London: £1million
- Wimbledon, south west London: £712,000
High Court judges ordered Graham to support her for life because she is "unable to meet her basic needs" after blowing the cash he gave her before.
Graham had argued that he shouldn't be the insurer against his wife's "poor financial decisions" and be forced to "pick up the tab" 15 years after they split.
Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder heard that the couple, who have a grown-up son, married in 1988, separated in 2001 and divorced in 2002, after reaching an agreement on how their wealth should be split.
related stories
'SHE WAS STRUGGLING' 
Lecturer who worked extra hours after divorce beats ex's bid to stop paying maintenance
Brad Pitt is 'confident' he'll get joint custody of kids in divorce battle blow to Angelina Jolie
Couples reveal the one thing that brought them back from the brink of divorce
Richard Keys' wife prepares to DIVORCE cheating husband saying he's 'completely run out of chances'
Surveyor Graham agreed to give his ex, who formerly worked for a Notting Hill estate agent, £1,100 a month in personal maintenance, as well as almost all their "liquid capital" when they split, while he kept his businesses.
But his wife "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 eventually purchased a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in pricey Battersea.
Each time she "over-financed" by increasing her mortgage liabilities, but failed to offset them with enough profit from the sale of the properties.
After flogging the Battersea flat in 2009, the estate agent was forced to move to Weybridge in a rented home where she works two days a week as a beauty therapist.
The pair both went before a family judge last year with the wife asking for more maintenance because she couldn't manage financially and the husband seeking a clean break.
Judge Mark Everall QC threw out both their challenges but they then each instructed QCs to renew their battle before the Court of Appeal.
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".
The court heard how Graham has remarried with a new family and is desperate to move on with his life.
His barrister, Philip Cayford QC, called for a change in the law to limit maintenance and encourage "independence" post divorce.
He added: "The husband has done all that could be reasonably expected of him in his reasonable wish to move on post-divorce.
"The same cannot be said of the wife. It is a result of her poor financial decisions that the capital provision has been dissipated.
"The husband has played no part in the wife's losses…and yet is expected effectively to pick up the tab."
Frank Feehan QC, for the wife, admitted she "wasn't a good businesswoman" but said she had health difficulties and was "unable to meet her basic needs".
Source: Read Full Article