This case is an appeal regarding various ancillary matters arising out of a divorce, namely the division of matrimonial assets and the maintenance for the Wife.
For the division of matrimonial assets, the quantum of direct financial contribution is largely agreed on between the parties but the dispute was with regards to the cash payments to the matrimonial home. The Husband argued that even though the property was paid for using the funds of the Wife’s account, he gave her most of the funds. On the other hand, the Wife argued that she supplemented the funds with not only her own income, but also via loans from her family and the liquidations of co-owned shares that she held with her brother. The Court accepted $105,361.92 as the Wife’s direct cash contribution, but balance of $221,975.75 to be attributed equally to both parties.
For the indirect contributions, the Court ultimately found that the ratio was to be 55:45 in favour of the Wife. Both parties contributed to the marriage in various ways. However, it leaned slightly in favour of the Wife because she helped and stood by the Husband when he got into debt with illegal moneylenders.
The weightage of direct and indirect contributions was held to be equal as it was a long marriage and there were no special circumstances to depart from it.