Interim maintenance follows need, not the payer's income

The Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Robert G. Mangion and Mr Justice Simone Grech, on 28 April 2026 decided a wife's appeal against decrees rejecting 11 requests for interim orders in her separation case. The court held that maintenance while a case is pending is measured by the need of the person claiming it, not by the payer's income. It dismissed most of the appeal, but ordered the husband to file statements for all his bank accounts, including those abroad.

The facts

In Z1 vs Z2, the wife sued her husband for separation in 2018. Between 2018 and 2024 she filed 11 applications for interim orders on maintenance, loan repayments, documents and witnesses. The Civil Court (Family Section) rejected them without giving reasons.

In separate proceedings, the constitutional courts found that the unreasoned decrees breached her right to a fair hearing. They ordered the decrees revoked and decided afresh. On 8 and 10 May 2025, the Family Section decided the applications again, with reasons, and rejected them.

The husband paid €250 a month for the wife and €1,500 a month for the children, plus all their health and education costs. The wife argued that his income far exceeded hers and that maintenance should be proportionate to it.

The parties also owed Bank of Valletta p.l.c. money on the loan for their home. After the wife obtained a precautionary garnishee order against the husband for more than €700,000, the bank called in the loans. On 16 May 2023, the First Hall of the Civil Court declared the bank a creditor of both spouses, jointly and severally, for €166,531.52 with interest.

What the court held

On maintenance, the court held that the wife's argument lacked legal basis. Article 20(1) of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta) ties maintenance to the need of the claimant as well as the means of the payer. The primary measure for maintenance pending the case is need.

The court found €1,500 a month for the children more than sufficient. It said that "mhux biżżejjed għal min iressaqhom li jfajjar ċifri bl-addoċċ u esaġeratament għoljin bit-tama li jressaq il-boċċa ħdejn il-likk" (it is not enough to throw out random and exaggerated figures in the hope of landing the bowl near the jack). Some of the wife's receipts did not cover health or education at all.

The court added that interim decrees run for the future, not backwards. When granting interim maintenance, the Family Section does not decide who is at fault, or it would prejudge the merits.

On the bank debt, the court held that asking the husband to regularise the position now meant asking him to pay the whole judgment debt pending the case. Regulations 4(3) and 5 of the Civil Court (Family Section) regulations, S.L. 12.20, allow only provisional and precautionary orders. A demand to pay more than €200,000 was neither.

The court also rejected the request to release the garnished money to the bank. A precautionary garnishee secures a claim until judgment, and the request would turn that purpose upside down. A difference in income did not relieve the wife of her share of a common debt she could, on the face of it, partly pay.

On documents, the court allowed the appeal. Article 637(1) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta) allows a party to be ordered to produce documents in which the other party has an interest. The Family Section was wrong to hold that foreign bank records could only be sought from the bank, since the accounts were the husband's own.

The court ordered him, within one month and under pain of contempt, to file a sworn note with statements for every bank account he has held since 2015, including closed ones. It dismissed the appeal on authorising a phone company witness, because the wife had not summoned the witness properly or identified the number. It split the costs of the appeal nine-tenths to the wife and one-tenth to the husband.

Why it matters

A high earner does not face higher interim maintenance for that reason alone. The claimant must prove need, with receipts that match the heads claimed.

Interim orders cannot be used to settle a joint debt, and a party can be made to produce their own foreign bank statements.

Where it sits

Article 3 of the Civil Code makes spouses maintain each other according to their means. Article 7 imposes the duty to maintain children, and article 19 sets out what maintenance covers. Articles 45, 46 and 46A govern custody, the home and maintenance while a separation case runs.

The court relied on its own case law. It cited the Court of Appeal (14 December 2018) on the interlocutory nature of these decrees, and (10 December 2024) on their enforcement. On need as the limit it cited (29 February 2024), and on both parents sharing the duty (22 February 2024). It cited (12 May 2022) on the child's direct right to maintenance and (5 October 2023) on a spouse able to work.

Source

Court of Appeal, 125/2018/5, 28 April 2026.