This was recently considered by the Court in the case of H v H (2009) which involved a high value ancillary relief claim by a wife who, by the time of the final hearing, was pregnant by her new partner.
In H v H the Court considered the effect of the wife’s possible cohabitation with her new partner and of another child. Once again the Court reiterated that cohabitation is not to be equated by marriage and therefore in this case, the Court held that the wife’s relationship with her new partner should not have any effect upon the husband’s liability to pay maintenance. In this case, there was no evidence before the Court to suggest that the wife’s new partner had made a significant contribution for her financial outgoings. The Court felt that even despite the fact that the wife was expecting a child, this did not necessarily mean that the wife and her new partner would cohabit, cohabitation not being a reliably valid indicator of anything long term.
Under Section 28 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, re-marriage terminates financial obligation whereas cohabitation does not. It was the Court’s view that if cohabitation is to be treated like marriage, then such a change in the law would need to come from Parliament and not from the Court. We therefore have a clear signal from the Courts that just because in this case the wife was probably cohabitating, this did not mean that her husband did not have a duty to pay her maintenance in a case where such a liability arose.
For further information, contact Cohen Cramer Solicitors family law department here or for further information, contact Cohen Cramer Solicitors on 0113 244 0597 or visit www.cohencramer.co.uk
