A man who disposed of several properties since reaching a separation agreement with his wife 16 years ago has lost his legal attempt to stop paying her €1,250 monthly maintenance.The man, Judge Nuala Jackson decided, gave “evasive and inconsistent” evidence about his finances, had not disclosed the full extent of his income and “clearly received” substantial sums from property sales but claimed to have nothing remaining from such receipts.It was “difficult not to conclude” that his stopping payments of spousal maintenance last year was, as his ex-wife had claimed, more to do with an unwillingness to pay rather than an inability to do so, the judge held.In a recently published judgment, Jackson refused the man’s application to cease or vary the €1,250 maintenance and ordered him to continue the payments, plus €12,500 arrears. Having found the woman had reduced her financial resources as a result of transferring 90 per cent of her interest in the “valuable” family home to the parties’ adult children, the judge declined her bid to have maintenance increased to €1,689, in line with the consumer price index. The couple, both aged in their 70s, previously jointly owned up to 20 properties, most of which were in negative equity when they settled judicial separation proceedings in 2010.Under the settlement, the woman got the family home, a half share, subject to some deductions, of sale proceeds of two investment properties, €1,250 monthly maintenance and €15,000 towards the children’s educational costs. The man got ownership of several other properties acquired during the Celtic Tiger era and in negative equity in 2010. Although the settlement provided he would indemnify the woman concerning property debts, the fact of borrowings in their joint names meant the woman retained a potential risk of recovery steps being taken against her by lenders, the judge noted. In his application, the man argued the financial circumstances of both parties had changed to such a degree that maintenance should no longer be payable. He argued the woman’s finances are much stronger than his and any financial challenges she had were of her own making. After she transferred 90 per cent of her home interest to their children, that property was sold for more than €1.3 million. A more modest property was purchased for her, in which she had a right to reside for life, and she has a modest private pension and a State pension.The man said four investment properties retained by him had been repossessed or sold. He said he retains two encumbered properties and lives in one of those, but repayments on it will be beyond his means from early 2028. A planned sale of the other will leave little equity and he has maintenance obligations for a dependent child from another relationship, he said.The woman claimed he had taken steps to divest himself of assets in an effort to cease maintenance. Jackson found a “lack of clarity and inconsistency” was “palpable” in the man’s evidence.He failed to account “in any satisfactory manner” concerning the disbursement of monies from property sales. A self-generated document indicated he received about €620,000, after deductions of “expenses by solicitors”, from the disposal of nine properties. Other concerns included unvouched alleged loans and unvouched alleged repayments of those to third parties, including his former partner. His evidence about numerous holidays, trips abroad and “luxury expenditure” was inconsistent with his claimed circumstances and was “evasive and inconsistent”. The judge said the woman’s resources were clear and the diminution of those in preferment of the children of the marriage was a relevant matter. Her standard of living as disclosed in her statement of means appeared broadly consistent with her income, including maintenance. The man’s standard of living was not consistent with his statement of means, particularly having regard to significant foreign travel “entirely unaccounted” for in that statement, said Jackson. Both parties adopted traditional roles during the marriage and the dependency role assumed by the woman was reflected in the 2010 settlement, she noted. Both parties have been responsible for the diminution of their accommodation security, but while there was transparency in relation to the woman’s circumstances, there was no such transparency as regards the man. The sums received by him in recent years from property sales would be amply sufficient to address his accommodation needs into the future, she said.