N.K. v S.K.

JudgeMs. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon
Judgment Date29 July 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] IEHC 572
Docket Number[2014 No. 54 M.]
CourtHigh Court
Date29 July 2016

[2016] IEHC 572



O'Hanlon J.

[2014 No. 54 M.]




Family – The Family Law Act 1995 – Interim maintenance – Compliance of disclosure – Dissipation of funds – Disposition of vehicle – S. 47 of the 1995 Act report

Facts: The respondent/wife sought an interim maintenance under s. 7 of the Family Law Act 1995 and also sought direction to the effect that the applicant/husband be directed to obey the order of the High Court regarding the access to the dependent children. The respondent, by a further notice of motion, sought a declaration that the sum of alleged expenditure be declared a reviewable disposition under s. 35 of the 1995 Act. The applicant, by a notice of motion, sought an order to the effect that the respondent be restrained from dissipating funds in the respondent's account under s. 35 of the 1995 Act and sought for a fresh report under s. 47 of the 1995 Act.

Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon directed both the parties not to dissipate any assets held by the parties in any of the parties' accounts except with the permission of the Court pending trial and therefore, adjourned the motions regarding the same to the hearing of the action. The Court further reserved costs and refused stay. The Court found that both the applicant and the respondent had not complied fully and properly with the direction of disclosure. The Court held that the applicant was bound to pay the monthly payment, interim maintenance. The Court held that the applicant could dispose of the applicant's vehicle under the supervision of the Court to constitute a fund pending trial to be controlled by the respondent out of which the respondent could deduct maintenance payment per month pending the trial. The Court held that it would leave over the issue of the s. 47 report concerning the transfer of children, pending hearing from the assessor.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon delivered on the 29th day of July, 2016
Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon

This is a judgment in relation to three motions which were before this Court on 24th June, 2016.


A notice of motion issued on behalf of the respondent wife, dated 15th December, 2015, that seeks interim maintenance pursuant to s. 7 of the Family Law Act 1995, and that also seeks that the applicant be directed to comply with the order of the High Court dated 12th August, 2015 relating to access to the dependent children.


A notice of motion, dated 25th January, 2016, filed on behalf of the applicant husband seeks that the respondent be restrained from dissipating funds in her accounts, amounting to €31,657 in one account and €12,082 in another account, pursuant to s. 35 of the Family Law Act, 1995. The applicant husband was also seeking a fresh section 47 report. Upon the recommendation of the previous s. 47 assessor, Dr. Curtin, neither the applicant nor the respondent were furnished with the previous full report already carried out so that the recommendations made could be understood and put in context.


A further notice of motion, dated 5th April, 2016, filed on behalf of the respondent wife seeks a declaration that alleged expenditure in the sum of €1,275,281 be declared a reviewable disposition pursuant to s. 35 of the Family Law Act 1995 and also seeks an order prohibiting any further transfer of monies by her husband from the jurisdiction.


The special summons in this case was served on 22nd July, 2014 by the applicant husband on the respondent wife. The applicant and respondent herein were married to one another on 2nd April1995 in Pakistan. The applicant is resident and domiciled within the jurisdiction of this Court. There are three children of the marriage, M. born on 6th July, 1996, U. born on 18th January 1998 and H. born on 9th December, 2000.


The applicant is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist who is employed by the HSE and also operates a private practice. The respondent is a housewife who also received a salary from the applicant's company during the marriage. Unhappy differences existed in the marriage for a period in excess of one year prior to the institution of the within proceedings.


A section 47 report was completed by Dr. Geraldine Curtin in July 2015.


An order was made on 12th August, 2015 by Barton J. of the High Court in terms of a consent between the parties that there would be joint custody of the dependent children with primary care going to the respondent mother and regular access to the applicant father. The applicant also agreed to discharge the rent on the property in which the respondent resides. The children did not reside with the respondent mother in accordance with the consent order.


An order was made on 18th December, 2015 by this Court reflecting terms of consent. The applicant agreed to pay the respondent the sum of €3,300 immediately. Access over the Christmas period was also agreed between the parties.


The respondent stated in an affidavit dated 15th December, 2015 that she accumulated savings of approximately €100,000 from child benefit and monies (€1,850 per month) paid to her as a secretary for the applicant's company prior to the breakdown of the marriage. However, she states that she has had to use said monies for everyday living expenses and she stated that she is now in dire financial straits and is relying on the children's allowance which is now just €135 per month as only one child is under 18 years of age.


The applicant stated in his affidavit dated 19th January, 2016 that he has discharged the cost of the respondent's rent. He believes that the remainder of the monies that she has in savings should be frozen and he identified...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • N.K. v S.K.
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 17 January 2017
    ...an interim basis requiring the respondent husband to leave the family home pending the determination of judicial separation proceedings ([2016] IEHC 572). The husband appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision contending, first, that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make a c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT