A hospital consultant has become the first man to be ordered to pay all of his £550,000 assets to his ex-wife, following an extraordinary divorce ruling.

Anaesthetist Dr Essam Aly, 54, 'washed his hands' of his family after leaving wife Enas, 46, in 2011 and moving to Bahrain - and has not paid a penny in maintenance or child support since 2012.

Out of the reach of the British authorities and courts, it was feared the 'serial defaulter' from Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, would never again pay to support her or their two children.

Court battle: Dr Essam Aly (left), 54, 'washed his hands' of his family after leaving wife Enas (right), 46, in 2011 and moving to Bahrain - and has not paid a penny in maintenance or child support since 2012

So to ensure that the children and the wife would be secure, a family court judge ordered that their entire £550,000 fortune should go to her. Court of Appeal judges have now upheld the payout.

The court heard the husband worked at Queen's Hospital in Burton, while the wife was a GP in Derby. The couple married in 2002 and had a son and a daughter, before separating in 2011.

Dr Aly moved to Bahrain the following year, and has since started a relationship with another woman, undergone an Islamic marriage ceremony and had another child.

At Birmingham Family Court last year, the wife complained that she had received nothing from him since he left Britain.

Her case was that he had effectively 'abdicated responsibility' for her and his children, appeal judge Lord Justice McFarlane said.

'Looking to the future, there was no expectation that she could look to him for any future payment of maintenance and it was therefore necessary for her to achieve an award representing effectively most of the capital assets,' he said.

Giving judgment last July, Judge Mark Rogers awarded her the proceeds of sale of their £250,000 home in Burton (pictured), plus another £310,000 held in the bank

She secured an injunction freezing his assets, resulting in the discovery of additional bank accounts, said the judge.

Giving judgment last July, Judge Mark Rogers awarded her the proceeds of sale of their £250,000 home in Burton, plus another £310,000 held in the bank.

On appeal, Dr Aly's barrister Louise McCabe said there was 'substantive unfairness' in handing the wife what was actually '100 per cent' of the couple's assets.

'The court has an obligation to consider the husband's needs and the judgment is absolutely silent on that,' she said.

Dr Aly's hope is that he can get permission to bring his new family to the UK and that he will be able to get a job here, she said.

He has applied for jobs and is still a due-paying member of the General Medical Council, Medical Defence Union and British Medical Association, she added.

The judge had effectively added up future maintenance payments and awarded them all in one go, something he was not allowed to do, she said.

Appeal judge: Lord Justice McFarlane (pictured) said the wife's case was that Dr Aly had effectively 'abdicated responsibility' for her and his children

It was also wrong to say he had offered nothing - since there was evidence he was willing to pay £40-a-week support for each child.

However, Lady Justice Macur said Dr Aly had shown himself to be 'unwilling' to provide any support to his former family.

And Lord Justice McCombe, who heard the appeal with Lady Justice Macur and Lord Justice McFarlane, questioned what else a judge could do in such a case.

'What was the judge supposed to do, faced with a serial defaulter, to make proper provision for this family?' he said. 'The wife is looking after the children and the father has washed his hands of them.'

Upholding the award, Lord Justice McFarlane said: 'The judge had in front of him a case where he was entitled to hold there was no realistic expectation of getting any further maintenance out of the husband'.

'He was beyond the reach of enforcement of courts in this country. He hadn't been paying for the previous two years.

'The judge was required, in determining the outcome of the financial provision proceedings, to give first consideration to the welfare of the two children.

'On the case before the judge, the wife was to have the sole responsibility and financial burden for bringing these children up.

'The judge, therefore, concluded that she should have the lion's share, if not all, of the assets, as she needed them to house herself in appropriate accommodation and make provision for these children.

'Thus it was that he awarded her a far more substantial lump sum than would otherwise have been the case if equality was the only yardstick.'

After the case, Andrew Newbury, head of family law at Slater and Gordon, said: 'One of the approaches the family court must take is to achieve fairness to both parties and in many cases that involves dividing the assets equally.

It secured the funds for the weaker party - a lump sum in the hand is worth years of uncertain maintenance in the bush Ayesha Vardag, divorce lawyer

'In the present case the only way to achieve fairness is to award the wife all of the assets to ensure her needs and the children's are met. By contrast the husband will have the unfettered use of his income and earning potential.'

And top divorce lawyer Ayesha Vardag said: 'This was a very straightforward decision to make sure this wife and children got something out of a non-paying husband.

'It secured the funds for the weaker party - a lump sum in the hand is worth years of uncertain maintenance in the bush.