ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

A woman who blew a six-figure divorce payout on a string of “unwise” property deals should be supported for life by her ex-husband, judges have ruled.

Part-time beauty therapist Maria Mills, 51, was given a £230,000 lump sum and £1,100-a-month maintenance payments when she split up with her husband Graham Mills 15 years ago.

The couple, who were married for 13 years and have a son, agreed that Mrs Mills should receive all their cash assets in order to buy herself a house, while Mr Mills, a surveyor, could keep his business interests.

Mrs Mills, a former Notting Hill estate agent, bought a home in Weybridge, Surrey, before upgrading to a three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon and then a two-bedroom apartment in a Victorian mansion block in Battersea.

However, she admitted she “unwisely invested” the money, plunging her into debt and leaving her “unable to meet her basic needs”.

The court heard that Mrs Mills left herself with mortgages that she could not pay and, after selling the Battersea flat in 2009, was left with no capital and was now renting in Weybridge.

Now working two days a week as a beauty therapist, she returned to the courts last year to ask for more money from her ex-husband.

Judge Mark Everall QC threw out Mrs Mills’s claim, but Court of Appeal judges Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder overturned his ruling, ordering that the monthly payments be raised to £1,441 and that Mr Mills must support his ex-wife for life.

Mr Mills has remarried and lives in Guildford with his new family. Philip Cayford QC, representing him, said: “This is a case where the wife leaves the marriage with all, or almost all the liquid capital, then says she needs maintenance for another 50 years, despite proving herself capable of working to a high standard.

“It is the husband’s case that he should not be the insurer against the wife’s poor financial decisions. The husband has done all that could be reasonably expected of him in his reasonable wish to move on post-divorce. The same cannot be said of the wife.

“It is a result of her poor financial decisions that the capital provision has been dissipated. The husband has played no part in the wife’s losses… and yet is expected to pick up the tab.”

Frank Feehan QC, for Mrs Mills, admitted she had mismanaged her finances, but said she had not been “profligate or wanton” and had had health problems. “Here was a woman, left with responsibility for a young child, without enough money to buy a house which was good enough, in her view. It was reasonable for her to get a mortgage,” he said.

Making the ruling, Sir Ernest said: “She had unwisely invested in a series of properties, each time moving upmarket, with the consequence that she is now without any of the capital she was given in 2002.”

However, he said Judge Everall “made an error of principle” in not explaining why Mrs Mills should not have her monthly payments raised and that Mr Mills “has and had the ability to make the maintenance payments asked for”.