The decision in GH v IH [2025] EWFC 120 (B) provides a revealing look at the long tail of family financial orders, where joint lives maintenance collides with real-life messiness: patchy compliance, unclear enforcement, varying income, and the challenge of aging parties still locked in litigation over a marriage that ended more than a decade ago.
District Judge Hatvany’s extempore judgment is a detailed and pragmatic application of section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, offering clarity on when variation is appropriate—and a cautionary note about maintenance orders that refuse to die quietly.
The Context: A Long Marriage, Long Orders, and Long Running Problems
The parties married in 1993 and divorced in 2012. The original financial order included joint lives maintenance of £2,000 per month, linked to RPI. But over a decade later, the wife brought enforcement proceedings claiming nearly £17,000 in unpaid RPI increases. The husband countered that he had “overpaid” by continuing to cover her private health insurance and mobile bills.
Meanwhile, both parties were approaching retirement age, the 2012 pension sharing orders hadn’t yet been implemented, and a jointly owned property was still awaiting sale. The wife lived mortgage-free; the husband remained self-employed with multiple properties and ongoing family obligations.
Notable Issues in the Judgment
- Joint Lives Maintenance Under Pressure
DJ Hatvany acknowledged that the original decision to order joint lives maintenance might not reflect modern practice, particularly where no long-term disability is involved. But with the wife nearing 66, holding a blue badge, and having health challenges, the original decision to make a joint lives order wasn’t inappropriate.
However, the judge was clear that indefinite £2,000 monthly payments were no longer justified, especially given the husband’s declining income and the wife’s own unacknowledged income from a solar farm.
- Credibility of Needs Claims
The wife claimed her needs were over £5,000 per month—including £900 for private health insurance—despite living alone in a mortgage-free property. The judge pegged her actual needs closer to £3,000 per month, noting that recent expenditures on kitchen renovations, new carpets, and landscaping were not indicative of hardship.
- What Counts as “Payment”?
The husband’s defence to the enforcement claim was novel but accepted: while he hadn’t paid the RPI-linked uplift, he had continued to cover the wife’s private health insurance, dental plan, and phone bills. On balance, the court found these payments exceeded what was due—so the enforcement application failed.
- Variation Principles and Forward Planning
From April 2025, the husband was ordered to pay £1,000 per month—not £2,000—reflecting the wife’s growing income from pensions and notional solar farm profit. But the judge expressed real concern about the lack of finality and urged the parties to consider agreeing a Duxbury-style capitalisation of the remaining maintenance obligation.
“Otherwise, I fear the door may be left open to the husband making a further variation application as he approaches retirement, or for the wife to make a further application if her circumstances change.”
Key Points for Family Law Practitioners
- Maintenance variation must reflect needs and affordability. The court closely scrutinised both parties’ lifestyles and income, including under-declared income sources.
- Creative compliance can be accepted. Payments made outside the strict terms of the order (e.g., health insurance) may still discharge the obligation if clearly linked and recorded.
- Clean breaks are preferable. This case is a textbook example of the cost and stress of lingering maintenance obligations—especially with pensions and properties still unresolved more than a decade on.
- Judicial restraint on costs. The judge pointedly asked for “no claim for costs” at the next hearing, to avoid incurring further legal expense over small differences.
Final Thought
GH v IH is a reminder that joint lives orders are often slow-burning sources of litigation, particularly when combined with unimplemented pension sharing, contested enforcement, and shifting needs as parties age. A Duxbury lump sum may not feel satisfying in the moment—but compared to another decade of claims, counterclaims, and spreadsheets—it can be a gift of finality.
