DEMARA & MONTIJO

The case of *Demara & Montijo* concerned an application by the wife for property settlement orders under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), spousal maintenance, and a child support departure order. The husband contested the wife's claims, particularly regarding his capacity to pay spousal maintenance and the extent of his available income for child support purposes.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to alter the parties' property interests, considering their contributions and future needs under sections 79 and 75(2) of the *Family Law Act*. Additionally, the court had to assess the husband's present and future capacity to pay spousal maintenance and whether the wife had established grounds for a child support departure order under section 117(2)(c)(ia) of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) due to alleged non-disclosure of income by the husband.

In relation to property settlement, the court found that while the initial assessment of contributions favoured the husband with 54% of the assets compared to the wife's 46%, a further adjustment of 16% in the wife's favour was warranted under section 75(2) to account for future needs. For spousal maintenance, despite difficulties in precisely determining the husband's income, the court concluded that he was likely to have the capacity to pay a shortfall in the wife's needs in the near future, and therefore, it was appropriate to capitalise this maintenance into a lump sum payment. However, the application for a child support departure order was dismissed, as the evidence, while raising scepticism about the husband's income disclosure, did not sufficiently establish that it was just and equitable to require him to pay a specific sum for child support.