A businessman has successfully overturned the decision of judges to increase his ex-wife's alimony payments despite their marriage ending 16 years ago.

Graham Mills appealed a High Court ruling which saw monthly payments awarded to Maria Mills increase by £341 to £1,441 to meet her 'basic needs'.

Supreme Court justices today ruled in favour of surveyor Mr Mills, who claimed that Mrs Mills 'unwisely' invested money he has sent her since their divorce in 2002.

Mrs Mills was originally awarded a £230,000 lump sum and monthly payments of £1,100, but a court heard she was left in debt after a number of failed property deals.

Graham Mills (pictured today, left) appealed a High Court ruling which saw monthly payments awarded to Maria Mills (right) increase by £341 to £1,441 to meet her 'basic needs'

She repeatedly traded up to live in increasingly upmarket homes, leaving her with a mortgage she was unable to afford, and is now living in rented accommodation.

Lady Hale, the Supreme Court president and most senior justice, said, at the start of the hearing that the case raised a point of law of 'some considerable importance'.

Mr Mills argued he 'should not be the insurer against the wife's poor financial decisions', saying it was unfair that he should 'pick up the tab' years after they split.

He said Mrs Mills had lost the lump sum through 'gross financial mismanagement' and argued she was in a position to work and increase her earnings.

A family court judge ruled that nothing should change but Court of Appeal judges, who considered the case in 2017, said Mrs Mills' payments should increase.

But the Supreme Court has now overturned the Court of Appeal ruling, saying judges 'erred' on the case.

Mr Mills (left) said his ex wife (right) had lost the lump sum through 'gross financial mismanagement' and argued she was in a position to work and increase her earnings

The court heard how Mr Mills (pictured with his legal team), a surveyor, agreed to give his ex-wife £1,100 a month in personal maintenance.

Despite pleas from Mr Mills for his ex-wife to secure her own 'independence', a judge said her monthly outgoings equated to £1,441 and it was wrong for a previous judge to order lower payments.

Sitting at London's Appeal Court, Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder heard how the couple, married in 1988 before separating in 2001.

They divorced in 2002, after reaching an agreement on how their wealth should be split.

The court heard how Mr Mills, a surveyor, agreed to give his ex-wife £1,100 a month in personal maintenance.

He also offered to give her almost all their 'liquid capital', while he agreed to keep his businesses.

Mrs Mills 'unwisely invested in a series of properties', each time 'moving upmarket' from a house in Weybridge, Surrey

She moved from the Surrey home to this smart three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon (pictured)

Later, Mrs Mills 'unwisely invested in a series of properties', each time 'moving upmarket' from a house in Surrey to a smart three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon.

She then moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea.

The court heard how Mrs Mills 'over-financed' each of her homes, increasing her mortgage liabilities.

But she failed to offset them with enough profit from the sale of the properties, a court heard.

She is now living in a rented home, back where she started in Weybridge, and works two days a week as a beauty therapist.

The judge said the pair both went before a family judge last year, with the wife asking for more maintenance because she could not manage financially.

Her ex-husband, who has since remarried and has another child with his new wife, went to judges in a bid to get a clean break.

Mrs Mills later moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea (pictured)