A top judge has backed a ruling which told the ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon to 'get a job' because she has no right to be 'supported for life' at her former husband's expense.

Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, has rejected an application by Tracey Susan Wright, 51, who claimed she should continue to receive maintenance support from her ex-husband Ian.

Last year, Mr Wright, 59, who is one of the country's top equine surgeons, went to the High Court to try and reduce the £75,000-a-year in maintenance and school fees he was ordered to pay his ex-wife following their divorce in 2008.

Tracey Susan Wright was told to 'get a job' by a High Court judge who rejected her bid to keep receiving £75,000 for maintenance and school fees from former husband Ian Wright, a leading equine surgeon

At the time, Judge Lynn Roberts agreed that the payments should come to an end since there was no good reason why Mrs Wright had not taken up any paid work in the six years since the divorce.

Mrs Wright, who lives with the couple’s two children in Newmarket, Suffolk, challenged the ruling, claiming that having to care for their 10-year-old daughter 'was an inherent restriction on her ability to develop any kind of earning capacity in the next five years.'

However, Lord Pitchford has now upheld Judge Roberts’ initial ruling and supported the idea that it is ‘imperative that she go out to work and support herself.'

The lengthy court battle began when the couple – who married in 1997 - divorced in 2008, having separated in 2006.

At the time, a judge ruled that they should sell their £1.3million seven-bedroom home, set in 16 acres of countryside in Suffolk, and split the proceeds.

It meant Mrs Wright – a former legal secretary and riding instructor - walked away from the divorce with a lump sum which enabled her to buy a £450,000 mortgage-free house in the heart of Newmarket, Suffolk, plus stabling for her horse and her daughters' ponies.

Mrs Wright claimed that caring for the couple's children restricted her ability to earn enough money to support them. The 51-year-old is pictured outside the home she shares with her daughters in Suffolk

As part of the divorce order, she was also handed £75,000 yearly payments, of which £33,200 was spousal maintenance for her personal upkeep.

She opted to remain a stay-at-home mother following the split and has so far refused to take up any paid employment.

It prompted Mr Wright, who runs a cutting edge equine hospital in Newmarket which carries out life-saving surgery on top-class horses, to approach the High Court to seek a reduction in the hefty maintenance bills he was paying his former partner.

Victory: Mr Wright said it was not fair he was expected to support his wife long into retirement when she refused to work

He protested that it was not fair that he was expected to keep supporting his ex-wife indefinitely, even after his retirement, while she made 'no effort whatsoever to seek work.'

The court heard that Mr Wright steadfastly made the payments, but was worried that supporting his wife would be unaffordable after he retires at 65.

Ruling in Mr Wright’s favour, Judge Roberts agreed last year that there was no good reason why Mrs Wright had not taken up work and criticised her for being 'evasive on the subject of her own earning capacity.'

'The world of work has innumerable possibilities these day...vast numbers of women with children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done as well,' the judge said.

'I do not think the children will suffer if Mrs Wright has to work, and indeed a working mother at this stage of their lives may well provide them with a good role model.

'It is possible to find work that fits in with childcare responsibilities. I reject her other reasons relating to responsibilities for animals, or trees, or housekeeping.

'Mrs Wright has made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills...I am satisfied that she has worked on the basis...that she would be supported for life.

'It is essential...that she starts to work now.'

At the time, the judge ruled that the personal maintenance payments from her ex-husband must stop, with a gradual tailing off over a five-year period leading up to his retirement.

However, Mrs Wright challenged the ruling, claiming that Judge Roberts' order would cause 'a plummeting in the standard of living' of the youngest child.

The court heard that the couple's daughter is a boarding pupil at a public school.

Mark Johnston, acting on behalf of Mrs Wright, argued that the assets Mrs Wright received in the split 'wouldn't come anywhere near allowing the wife to adjust without undue hardship...especially with one child still at home.'

Mr Wright runs a cutting edge equine hospital in Newmarket which carries out life-saving surgery on top-class horses (pictured). His wife, a former legal secretary, has been a stay-at-home mother since the divorce

Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice in London (pictured), rejected the application by Mrs Wright, which claimed she should continue to receive maintenance support from her ex-husband Ian

However, Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in the Court of Appeal, has now rejected her challenge and upheld the original ruling.

He said: 'The time had come to recognise that, at the time of his retirement, the husband should not be paying spousal maintenance.

'The wife had done nothing since 2008 to look for work, retrain or to prepare herself for work.

'Judge Roberts did not accept any of the explanations put forward by the wife for her inactivity and ruled that it was important that she obey the order.

'She had harsh words for the wife for her complete failure to confront her obligation to contribute financially. She found the wife exaggerated her income needs.

'There is a general expectation that, once children are in year two, mothers can begin part-time work and make a financial contribution.'

Mr Wright had been found to be 'a man of integrity who had done nothing to mislead the court.'

However, the court heard how the judge deemed the wife to be 'an unsatisfactory witness; particularly on the subject of her own earning capacity'.

Lord Justice Pitchford said: 'The judge made it very clear that, within a couple of years, she would be expected to contribute financially.

'The question is whether there is a real prospect of establishing that the judge gave inadequate reasons for her decision that the husband should provide no spousal maintenance in his retirement. In my view there is no such prospect'.

He added that 'the order was never intended to provide the wife with an income for life' and concluded: 'The onus will henceforth be on her. This application is dismissed.'