Raman and Raman

In *Raman and Raman*, McClelland J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine interim spousal maintenance orders. The dispute concerned the husband's obligation to provide financial support to the wife, including ongoing payments for various expenses related to a property and a motor vehicle, as well as legal costs.

The court was tasked with determining the extent of the husband's capacity to pay spousal maintenance, particularly in light of his income and financial arrangements. A key issue was the husband's disclosure of his financial position, including agreements with the Australian Taxation Office that impacted his income. The court also considered the wife's needs and the factors outlined in section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) relevant to spousal maintenance.

McClelland J applied the principle that a court may take a "robust view" of a party's financial capacity when there has been a failure to make full and frank disclosure. The court noted that capacity to pay maintenance is not confined to income but can extend to capital or borrowings. The husband's concession regarding his capacity to borrow funds for maintenance payments was taken into account. The court also considered the wife's reasonable needs and the husband's statutory obligations under section 75(2) of the Act.

The court ordered the husband to pay the wife weekly spousal maintenance, cover arrears and ongoing mortgage repayments, council and water rates, and building and home insurance for the Suburb C property. Additionally, the husband was ordered to pay the wife's legal costs and disbursements, with specific provisions for the handling and payment of these funds through the parties' solicitors, including mechanisms for ensuring payment if initial arrangements were not met.