Home bought with a husband's own money can go to the wife
The Family Section dissolved a marriage of more than 50 years for the husband's excesses, threats and grave injuries and gave the wife the flat, half his pension and €135,000. It matters to spouses whose home was bought with one side's inherited money.
Mr Justice Anthony Vella, sitting in the Civil Court (Family Section), on 12 May 2026 dissolved a marriage of more than 50 years and assigned the flat that served as the matrimonial home to the wife. The court found that the husband's excesses, threats and grave injuries broke the marriage and that adultery was not proved. It gave the wife half his pension and half of a €250,000 life policy bought with the proceeds of garages he had received by donation.
The facts
In M.D. vs NM, the parties married in 1972 and have two adult children. The wife stopped working at the husband's request before the wedding and never worked again. The husband received most of the family's property by donation from his mother and by inheritance from his sister.
In 2016 the parties sold the matrimonial home, which the husband had received by donation, and bought a flat for €190,000. He moved to a farmhouse he had developed on inherited land. In 2017 he sold two garages for €199,000 each and put €250,000 into a single-premium life policy.
The husband admitted that he also moved €354,000 to his lawyer's account so that his wife could not have it frozen by a garnishee order. The wife sued for separation in 2018 and later asked the court to treat the claim as one for divorce under article 66F of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta). The husband blamed her and argued that the flat was bought with his paraphernal money, meaning money that was his alone.
What the court held
On fault, the court adopted the distinction between excesses, which endanger health or life, and cruelty, which is grave and habitual ill-treatment short of that. It held that one ground under article 40 is enough. The adult children corroborated the wife's account of threats, contempt and control through money.
The court described a household "fejn il-missier tal-familja jikkmanda u kulhadd huwa assoggettat ghalih bla ebda cans ta’ diskussjoni jew espressjoni ta’ ideat" (where the father of the family commands and everyone is subject to him with no chance of discussion or expression of ideas). It found that he threw his son out of the house, made a police report to keep his children out of the flat and sold the garages he had promised them.
On adultery, the court held that it may be proved by grave, precise and concordant presumptions, without an eyewitness. It agreed with the legal referee that the evidence fell short, and added that even if there had been adultery, it did not cause the breakdown. It dissolved the marriage, finding no chance of reconciliation after more than four years apart.
On property, the court held that rents from the husband's paraphernal garages were fruits that fell into the community of acquests. It could not separate spending from his own capital and spending from community funds, and noted that he had lent money to others without consulting his wife. It awarded her €125,000, half the life policy, and €10,000 for the rents, the loans and the furniture of the first home.
On the flat, the court applied article 55A(1), which lets it assign the matrimonial home to one spouse after weighing the children's interest, the parties' welfare and whether each has somewhere else to live. It rejected the legal referee's advice to sell and the husband's offer of €5,000.
The husband had inherited much wealth, caused the breakdown and had the farmhouse. The wife had no other home, no income of her own and no chance of a bank loan. The court assigned the flat to her.
The court ordered that the wife keep half the husband's pension and declared that he had lost any right to claim maintenance from her. It refused, however, to apply the effects of articles 48 to 53 against him, holding that the grounds for doing so did not exist.
Why it matters
A spouse who holds title to the matrimonial home cannot assume he will keep it. The Family Section put fault, inherited wealth and the other spouse's lack of means ahead of the source of the purchase money.
Lawyers acting for a spouse with paraphernal assets should trace rents and loans as well. Where the accounts are unclear, the court may treat that money as belonging to the community.
Where it sits
Separation rests on the grounds in articles 38 (adultery), 40 (excesses, cruelty, threats, grave injuries or irretrievable breakdown) and 41 (desertion). Property received by donation or inheritance stays paraphernal, but the court treated its fruits as community property. Article 55A gives the court discretion over the matrimonial home, and article 66F allows a pending separation to become a divorce.
For the meaning of excesses and cruelty the court relied on a judgment of 27 April 2017 and on the First Hall of the Civil Court (30 June 1961). On proof of adultery by presumptions it cited judgments of 16 April 1953 and 22 February 1961. On the matrimonial home it followed an earlier judgment of the same court (28 September 2007), which held that legal title does not decide who gets the home.
Source
Civil Court (Family Section), 122/2018, 12 May 2026.