Plany and Geller

In *Plany & Geller* [2014] FamCA 114, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for periodic spousal maintenance and for the husband to pay her costs fixed but reserved at an earlier hearing. The parties had previously finalised property matters by consent in February 2012, and parenting orders were made by consent in October 2011. The wife sought spousal maintenance of $125 per week until 31 December 2017 to enable her to complete her university studies and secure employment in the education field. The husband opposed the application, arguing that he had paid sufficient interim maintenance, that the wife had an adequate ability to support herself, and that his financial circumstances had deteriorated.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the wife met the threshold test for spousal maintenance under section 72 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and if so, what order for maintenance, if any, was appropriate under sections 74 and 75(2) of the Act. The Court also had to determine the wife's application for costs from a previous hearing and the parties' costs for the current hearing. The husband also sought that any spousal maintenance order cease upon the wife receiving funds from a particular investment.

Thornton J applied the principles outlined in *Bevan & Bevan* (1995) FLC 92-600, requiring a threshold finding under s 72, consideration of s 74 and s 75(2), and noting that the pre-separation standard of living is not automatically awarded. The Court found that the wife was unable to adequately support herself due to her role as primary carer of four young children and her part-time university studies, which were aimed at increasing her earning capacity. The Court considered the various factors under s 75(2), including the parties' ages, health, financial resources, and the need to protect the wife's role as a parent and her efforts to gain future employment. The husband's opposition was largely dismissed, with the Court finding his financial circumstances did not preclude an order for maintenance, and that the wife had made reasonable efforts to improve her financial independence.

The Court ordered that the husband pay the wife spousal maintenance of $50 per week, payable monthly in advance, commencing on 1 April 2014 and ceasing on 31 December 2017. This payment was conditional upon the wife providing written notification at the commencement of each semester confirming her enrolment and satisfactory progress in her degree or postgraduate course. The wife's application for costs fixed at $1,630.25 from the 3 July 2012 hearing was dismissed, as was the husband's application for travel costs for the current hearing. The parties' costs for the hearing on 2 December 2013 were reserved, with written submissions to be filed by 7 April 2014. The Court also noted the wife's undertaking to inform the husband of any improvement in her financial circumstances.