A former millionaire software tycoon has branded Britain's divorce laws 'out of date' after winning a test case against a suspended jail sentence imposed against him for failing to keep up maintenance payments to his ex-wife.

Peter Morris, 51, said he has been left 'empty handed and homeless' since the end of his 25-year marriage to ex Jane after she was given the majority of the former couple's £560,000 wealth.

Mrs Morris, 52, was awarded £500,000 in the settlement while he received £66,000. He was later ordered to pay her £77,000 in maintenance and other 'debts' and was last year given a six-week suspended prison term for failing to pay her £2,000 per month.

But his lawyers told Court of Appeal judges jailing husbands for failing to pay maintenance violates their human rights and is a 'curious survivor' of Dickensian debtors laws which has 'no place in the modern world'.

Scroll down for video

Peter Morris, left, 51, will not have to serve a six-week suspended jail term for failing to pay ex-wife Jane, right, £2,000-per-month in maintenance after winning a Court of Appeal test case

Mr Morris is now asking for a financial 'clean break' from his ex, insisting he cannot pay her anything more as he is 'homeless, insolvent, and unable to meet his obligations.'

The couple enjoyed quarter of a century of well-heeled married life in their £1.2million four-bedroom detached house in the Chilterns.

Mrs Morris gave up her pre-marriage career as a businesswoman and 'stayed at home to look after the home and care for their children by agreement with her husband.'

He was MD of a software company with a seven-figure turnover, who earned up to £240,000-a-year, and the family enjoyed 'expensive holidays' as part of an enviable lifestyle.

Even when their marriage hit the rocks and they split in 2013, their 'extravagant' spending, particularly by Mr Morris, continued unabated.

By the time the case got to court, the money had almost dried up and Judge Glen Brasse ruled that only enough remained in the pot to meet the core needs of the wife and the couple's children.

Judge Judith Hughes QC later hit him with a suspended jail term for his failure to pay up.

Challenging the decision, Peter Duckworth, for Mr Morris, said a system which can see husbands jailed over debts to their ex-wives is a legal relic that ought to be consigned to history.

He told Lady Justice Black, Lord Justice Floyd and Mr Justice Moylan: 'The objective seems to be to force the husband into a situation from which he cannot escape...it is a very curious survivor of very old practices. Mr Morris's case raises an issue of public importance.

'Procedures are being implemented which don't comply with the obligations of the UK under the European Convention on Human Rights, consigning the husband to a prison sentence on a charge of which he was only dimly aware, at a time when he was not legally represented'.

Holding prison sentences over husband's heads was not 'in keeping with the modern view that husbands and wives approach this court on an equal footing,' added the barrister.

Following those arguments, Damien Garrido QC, for Mrs Morris, accepted that her ex-husband's suspended jail term should be overturned.

The couple bought a £1.2million home in the Chilterns, pictured, as part of an 'extravagant lifestyle', the previous divorce hearing was told

But she is hotly contesting his case that they should go their separate ways financially and that he shouldn't have to pay her any more.

Mr Morris, whose company has gone into administration, insists that his financial fortunes have continued to plummet and it is simply 'impossible' for him to pay all he owes.

And Mr Duckworth claimed that Mrs Morris is now better off in real terms than her ex-husband.

He told the court: 'There is nothing to suggest that the husband wilfully or deliberately neglected to pay maintenance.'

The barrister added: 'He was thrown out of his London flat and is living on the charity of his lady friend.

'He has been left in an impossible situation of being homeless, insolvent, and unable to meet his obligations'.

Of Mrs Morris, Mr Duckworth said: 'The indications that she can manage on the income that she has are many. She has a net income of over £23,000 a year.

'She is currently working for an estate agents as a receptionist. Her employment status is permanent. The wife moved into a mortgage-free property.

'There is also an entitlement from the estate of her late mother. This is a significant move in the wife's resources.

The Court of Appeal, pictured, is yet to decide on whether Mr Morris should continue paying his ex-wife

'The husband lacks the means to pay spousal maintenance, but the wife is secure in a new career, is backed by an inheritance and not in need of funds.

'In the current circumstances, he will be unable to go on paying anything to his former wife. Is this now a clean break case? I submit that it is.

'I believe it is time now to sever financial ties between this couple,' the barrister said.

Mr Garrido, in reply, urged the judges to uphold the maintenance order.

He complained that there was 'a complete absence of clarity' about Mr Morris's income, due to 'contradictory statements and complete lack of disclosure.'

The barrister went on to assert that Mr Morris is receiving substantially more money each month than he professes.

The judges have now reserved their decision on Mr Morris's appeal and will give their ruling at a later date.

Mr Duckworth said outside court: 'It is essentially a test case'.