Financial remedy cases can take many months – sometimes years – to resolve. It’s not unusual for the financially weaker party to face financial hardship as the process unfolds. ‘Maintenance Pending Suit’ (MPS) – or interim maintenance – is a temporary payment by one spouse to the other that enables the recipient to meet their living expenses during financial remedy proceedings. It stops once a final order – which may or may not include spousal maintenance – has been made.
When deciding whether to make an MPS order, courts consider if such an order would be reasonable and if it is necessary to meet the immediate needs of the applicant. MPS applications are not appropriate in every case. Careful thought should therefore be given as to whether seeking temporary maintenance in this way is proportionate when all the circumstances of the case are taken into account.Here we look at a case from July 2026 where a wife sought and received substantial MPS.
We also discuss the limitations of this type of application.
ST and NT (2026) – A Request For £16,000 Monthly Interim Maintenance
The issue of MPS arose early on in proceedings at the First Directions Appointment (FDA). This is a hearing where the court reviews the information the parties have exchanged – usually Form E and supporting documentation – and sets a timetable to move things forward. At the appointment the wife applied for maintenance pending suit (MPS).
The husband is 59 and the founder-owner of a technology company. In his Form E, he said the company had a turnover of £100 million in 2023, but this had since dipped to £57 million. According to him, the business was in fact now in a financially precarious position.
The wife is 49 and the primary carer of the children and home maker. She has been diagnosed with Addison’s disease. The parties had cohabited since 2007, got married the following year and had two children together. In 2024 the couple separated and the wife applied for divorce in February 2026.
At the time of the FDA the husband was living in the former matrimonial home and the wife, with the children, lived in another property owned by the family business. She was receiving £5,000 per month from the family business to meet hers and the children’s day to day expenses. School fees and other expenses, including medical expenses were paid directly to her by the company. (These totalled around £11,000 per month.)
The husband did not object to these payments continuing.
In her application for MPS the wife sought £16,000 per month (less the £5,000 she received from the company but over and above the £11,000 sum relating to additional fees we’ve mentioned covering medical, education and other expenses). She argued that such a figure was reasonable given the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and the husband’s current level of expenditure as evidenced in his Form E.
The husband strongly disagreed, saying the wife was being unreasonable.
What does the law say about MPS?
Referencing previous cases the court said the sole consideration in deciding whether to grant MPS is ‘reasonableness’ – equivalent to ‘fairness’. The crucial factor in deciding what is reasonable in this context is the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
The court also made clear that the focus of MPS should be to meet the immediate needs of the applicant.
The Decision
The judge was satisfied that this was a case where it was appropriate to grant MPS ahead of the final financial settlement. Specifically an order was made that the husband make MPS payments of £12,000 per month, with credit given for the £5,000 the wife was already receiving from the family business. The £11,000 payments for medical insurance and other fees should also continue to be paid separately as at present.
In reaching the decision the court clarified that the MPS:
- Was tailored to meet the immediate needs of the wife and the children – to provide them with financial certainty until the court made its final decision on financial remedies
- The amount awarded was not designed to replicate the wife’s standard of living enjoyed during the marriage
These applications always turn on the facts of the particular case. Here it appears that the court was swayed to make the order in the wife’s favour for two central reasons, unique to the case:
- What the court described as the husband’s ad hoc way of making current payments, reimbursing her for the cost of flights for example that she had bought for her and her children. It was, said the court ‘not appropriate’ for the wife and the children to rely on payments made ‘at the election of the husband as their means of financial security pending the final hearing’.
The court went further, suggesting that the husband’s approach to providing funds to the wife could be viewed as a way of exerting control over her. In one instance the husband had booked travel for the wife and children through the company of the woman who the wife alleged he had had an affair with and was now his partner. This meant she was forced to be in direct communication with her and her company. The granting of an MPS order would prevent such a situation arising in the future.
- The husband maintained up to and during the hearing that he should not be required to disclose business credit card or bank account statements from corporate accounts used to fund family expenditure during the marriage. As these were company statements, they were, he argued, technically not required by the Form E. Because of this approach the court felt it was entitled to draw ‘robust assumptions’ about the husband’s ability to pay MPS at a level not limited to the level of income or resources he had actually disclosed.
In particular, the court did not accept the husband’s assertion that he could not fund more than the current £5,000 being paid to the wife via the family company. (The court did find the wife guilty of a degree of exaggeration in terms of expenditure. It did not accept for example, her statement that she spent £4,000 on skincare per year for the children. Nevertheless it found the budget she had presented to the court in support of her application reasonable overall.)
Comment
For the wife in ST and NT bringing the MPS application was clearly a worthwhile exercise. Given the hostility between the parties and the amount of assets to be divided in the substantive financial remedy proceedings, the case was likely to be protracted. Following the court order she would no longer be at the whim of her husband when it came to managing her finances before a final order was made.
It’s important to note however that in these cases the courts emphasise that proportionality is key. In non ‘big money’ cases anyone seeking MPS should step back and balance the costs associated with any application against the amount of money they are likely to be awarded in any MPS order.
If we consider that the overriding objective of the Family Procedure Rules is to deal with each case justly – and that this means:
- ensuring that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly
- dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues
- saving expense
- allotting to the case an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while considering the need to allot resources to other cases
DSD v MJW is a case in point. It serves as a warning that the appropriateness of MPS applications should always be carefully thought through. Particularly if it is intended to make an application when the main case is already at an advanced stage. In DSD the wife unsuccessfully applied for MPS that would have amounted to no more than £2,000. The costs of the application were £13,000. The judge was in no doubt that the application was a bad one and should not have been made. In ending his judgment he was highly critical, stating:
‘I have no hesitation in dismissing this application. This family court will not entertain such cost disproportionate applications and thoroughly criticises this approach.’
If you are considering an application for MPS you should seek legal advice early on in proceedings. A specialist family law solicitor can advise you on whether such an application is warranted and whether there may be alternative ways to protect your position before a final hearing in your case.