News, views and top stories in your inbox. Don't miss our must-read newsletter Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A divorced wife handed almost 100% of the cash from her marriage has won an order that her ex must give her more maintenance and support her for life - because she has blown the lot.

Former estate agent, Maria Mills, 51, got a £230,000 lump sum in 2002, plus a £1,100 monthly personal maintenance payment, when she split with "reliable and truthful" husband, Graham Mills, 50, after 13 years of marriage .

But she lost it all and plunged heavily into debt after investing "unwisely" in a series of ever more "upmarket" London properties in a bid to climb the housing ladder.

Top judges at London's Appeal Court have now ordered Mrs Mills' monthly payouts to be upped to £1,441 and told her ex-husband he must support her for life, because she is "unable to meet her basic needs."

Mr Mills earlier pleaded that he "should not be the insurer against the wife's poor financial decisions" and forced to "pick up the tab" 15 years after they split.

And his barrister, Philip Cayford QC called for changes in the law to limit maintenance and encourage "independence" post-divorce.

Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder heard that the couple, who have a grown-up son, married in 1988, separated in 2001 and divorced in 2002, after reaching an agreement on how their wealth should be split.

(Image: Richard Gittins / Champion News Service)

Mr Mills, a surveyor, agreed to give his ex, who formerly worked for a Notting Hill estate agent, £1,100 a month in personal maintenance, as well as almost all their "liquid capital" when they split, while he kept his businesses.

Later, however, Mrs Mills "unwisely invested in a series of properties, each time moving upmarket" from a house in Weybridge, Surrey, to a smart three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon, to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea.

Each time she "over-financed," increasing her mortgage liabilities, but failed to offset them with enough profit from the sale of the properties.

After she sold the Battersea flat in 2009, she was "without any of the capital" she netted from her marriage, and is now living in a rented home, back where she started in Weybridge.

She currently works two days a week as a beauty therapist, the court heard.

The pair both went before a family judge last year, with Ms Mills asking for more maintenance, because she couldn't manage financially, and the husband seeking a clean break.

Judge Mark Everall QC threw out both their challenges, but they then each instructed QCs to renew their battle before the Court of Appeal.

Mr Cayford told the judges Mr Mills, who lives in Guildford, has remarried, has a new family and is desperate to "move on" with his life.

"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," he said.

Frank Feehan QC, for the wife, however, pointed out that - whilst Judge Everall had found she was "not a good businesswoman" who "did not manage her finances wisely" and "took on too high borrowings" - he had not found that she was "profligate or wanton in her approach to her finances."

The judge had also accepted that her finances and ability to work had been "hindered" by health problems she has experienced over the last decade.

He defended her "credit card debts, run up over many years as a single parent having health difficulties."

"She has not been found to be wanton in having credit card debts in order to have a living wage for her and her son," he added.

Asking for an increase in maintenance, he said Mrs Mills is currently "unable to meet her basic needs."

Sir Ernest, giving the court's ruling, said Mr Mills had been regarded as "reliable, truthful and frank" by Judge Everall, who had been "less impressed with the wife."

No value was put on Mr Mills's business interests, but the court was told that he had previously been able to draw dividends from them of up to £200,000 a year.