Loading Behaviour like Richard's is far more common than you might think. In my many years of work as a divorce lawyer at Vardags, I've met countless people who feel they are trapped in relationships or marriages marred by financial conflict. When this takes the form of one partner forcing the other to be dependent on them for housing, food, clothes, transport or money, it can tip over into economic abuse, which occurs across the social spectrum. A study in 2015 of more than 4,000 people showed that one in five experienced such abuse in a current or former relationship. In the UK government's forthcoming Domestic Abuse Bill, due to be published in the coming months, this will, for the first time, be identified as a form of domestic abuse - thus exerting control over someone's personal finances would be recognised as a criminal act. The culprits are not only male, though more often than not it's the man who has more money in a heterosexual relationship. It is particularly rife in instances where one spouse has a high net worth on which the other is financially dependent, and is often cited as unreasonable behaviour on divorce petitions. I've seen women who live in palatial mansions with tennis courts and swimming pools, yet can't even buy a bar of chocolate or box of tampons without pleading and justifying the expenditure to their controlling husband. Speaking to the other lawyers in my firm, I gathered hundreds of stories; they told me of husbands tapping phones and paying for private detectives and bodyguards to spy on their wives, and sometimes their grown-up children, whenever they left the house.

One retail magnate sent bodyguards to his adult daughter's university. When they reported back that she had been on a date with a fellow student, he decreed that she leave her studies and return home, where he could keep a closer eye on her. A member of the Silicon Valley "brotopia" would force his wife to beg him whenever she needed anything. His home was a fortress of hi-tech security, cameras watching every move, fingerprint locks, electronic gates and 24/7 security staff. Every "transgression" on his wife's part led to financial penalties. Another husband, an oil magnate, installed secret cameras in the bedroom and bathroom of his wife, a full-time mother of two young children, so as to monitor her fidelity. When she started divorce proceedings, we had to take him to court to make him support her and the children even during the process. As long as she toed the line, she received, quite literally, castles and Ferraris. Once she crossed it, there was a complete shutdown. Often it is staff who are delegated to exercise the control. Housekeepers are instructed that only certain sorts of food are allowed, and drivers are the only means of exit from the home, tasked with either reporting back or chauffeuring their employers' wives to pre-approved destinations. Nannies act as spies, too. The controlling spouse locks the victim in a gilded cage - try even getting to see a lawyer in those circumstances, let alone friends. When I told one woman who was trapped in such a marriage what award she was likely to receive in divorce, she was terrified by the idea of actually having her own funds. Of Middle Eastern origin, she had married a Britain-based multi-millionaire businessman at a relatively young age and had never had financial independence. She was dripping with designer clothes and handbags, but withdrawing money from a cash point was a totally alien concept to her.

Loading Elsewhere, I have met with countless individuals, usually women, who have found that access to the family finances is used as a tool to control, manipulate or punish them within a relationship. These women have quite often been married for many years, and have not only sacrificed their own careers to look after the children and the home, but have also channelled their energies into helping their husband reach the top of his profession. Frequently, they have no earnings, savings or pension themselves, having trusted the person they love to manage their finances for them. When the relationship is healthy, this arrangement can work very well; if it sours, however, the power imbalance usually fosters a sinister turn. And this can work both ways. One man came to me after his wife, a farming heiress, got him sacked from his job on the family estate when she - not he - started an affair. She then tried to turn him out of their home, which was also part of her domain, and refused him contact with their three small children, in whose care he had played a very active role. The abuse customarily worsens when the financially vulnerable party takes steps to leave the marriage. With depressing regularity, we see clients whose access to bank accounts has been blocked, so they cannot even afford to take public transport to seek advice. They borrow cash from friends to reach us, terrified of being found out. Others feel they have no choice but to stay in an unhappy, sometimes even physically abusive, marriage - not least when faced with the sheer scale and potential cost of their divorce. According to the charity Women's Aid, victims are often unable to recognise the abuse until it has escalated to the point at which the barriers to leaving appear insurmountable.

We can only hope that now this abuse is beginning to gain public recognition as a potentially criminal offence, things will begin to change. Telegraph, London