Application for interim spousal maintenance — reasonable needs — ability to pay — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 62, 64, 64A, 66 & 82 — Ropiha v Ropiha [1979] 2 NZLR 245 — Hodson v Hodson [2010] NZFLR 252. The parties had been in a de facto relationship, the length of which was in dispute. The applicant applied for interim spousal maintenance while their relationship property proceedings were underway, and until the full hearing in relation to final spousal maintenance. The applicant had been working in the pest control industry but claimed she stopped working in this industry once the parties' relationship began. She stopped work in order to care for and co-ordinate care for the parties' children and the respondent's mother, as well as to carry out other domestic and farm duties. The applicant alleged that the respondent had trashed her reputation near the end of their relationship by spreading false rumours about her using and dealing drugs, and that this was why she was unable to re-establish herself in the pest control industry. Following the parties' breakup, the applicant moved to Auckland and entered full-time study. The applicant sought interim maintenance of $2,200 per week to cover living expenses, and $8,500 per month for legal fees. The respondent accepted that he was liable for maintenance; however, he submitted that maintenance should be limited to 12 months of past maintenance from the date of separation, based on the applicant's annual expenses of $28,000. He submitted that the respondent's inability to meet her reasonable needs was not based on qualifying circumstances, and that the time between the relationship ending and the applicant applying for maintenance was such that she should now be able to meet her own needs. If interim maintenance were to be ordered, the respondent submitted that it should be based on the modest living standards during the relationship, and the relatively short nature of the relationship. In assessing an application for interim spousal maintenance under s 82 of the Family Proceedings Act ("FPA"), a court had to consider the reasonable needs of the applicant over the period for which the order would subsist; the means likely available to the applicant to meet those needs; the respondent’s reasonable means to meet any shortfall and his or her reasonable needs; the ability of the respondent to be able to meet the reasonable needs of the applicant; and whether the court ought to exercise its discretion to make an interim order and, if so, for how long and on what conditions. A court could also look at the criteria for final spousal maintenance in ss 62-66 of the FPA, but was not obliged to do so. The Court noted that there were many aspects of the parties' relationship that were in dispute. The evidence at this stage was also limited, but this was not unexpected given it was an interim application. Taking into account the justice of the particular circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to exercise its discretion to make an award of interim maintenance in the applicant's favour. The Court awarded an adjusted amount of $1,345 per week for a six-month period. The Court declined to make an award in respect of legal fees. Note: this judgment has been appealed to the High Court. See Jones v Thomas [2023] NZHC 2024. Judgment Date: 11 October 2022. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *