Court assigns a violent husband's half-share as maintenance

The Civil Court (Family Section), Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro, decided A B C vs D B on 24 June 2026. It pronounced personal separation for reasons imputable solely to the husband, applied the forfeitures in article 48 of the Civil Code against him in full and, because it did not trust him to pay a monthly sum, settled the wife's maintenance by assigning her his half of a jointly owned stable.

The facts

The parties married in 1996 after meeting as teenagers; their daughter is now an adult. For most of the marriage they lived with the wife's grandparents in Birkirkara, where the husband worked as a horse-cab driver.

The wife testified to beatings from soon after the wedding, escalating once the grandparents were gone: being locked in a room overnight without food or a toilet, sexual coercion, control of her money, rules on when she could wash, and being stopped from voting in 2013.

In September 2019 an assault in the street brought neighbours out; the husband was arrested, admitted the charges and served twelve months. A second incident on 8 February 2020, while a protection order was in force, led to a second conviction. The wife filed for separation in October 2020.

The husband denied all violence, said the marriage broke down because of “false reports”, pleaded that the sworn application was filed late, and asked that the community be split equally.

What the court held

The late-filing plea had already been dispensed with by decree of 29 October 2025. On fault, the court set out the settled test: separation under article 40 needs habitual or repeated conduct, not isolated quarrels, and any one of excesses, cruelty, threats or grave injuries is enough on its own.

It found the wife's account credible in its detail and corroborated by police reports, the shelter, an Appoġġ social worker, the probation officer's pre-sentencing report, the husband's long criminal record and the daughter's affidavit. “Il-mod kif kien jittrattaha huwa neżżgħaha mid-dinjità tagħha” [the way he treated her stripped her of her dignity].

Excesses, threats, cruelty and grave injuries were amply proved. Adultery was also proved, from the husband's statements in hospital and the evidence of his current partner, but was not the cause of the breakdown. Following the Court of Appeal in Z1 vs Z2 (13 January 2026), the court dated the breakdown to June 1998, the first medical certificate, since a reconciliation not founded on good faith on both sides is an illusion.

Because fault lay wholly with the husband, the court applied article 48 in full through the discretion in articles 51 and 52, including loss of any right to claim maintenance from her. On her maintenance it applied article 20 and the Court of Appeal's guidance in Z1 vs Z2 (17 June 2025): maintenance follows need and means, and the guilty spouse generally owes it.

The wife, now fifty, had never worked because he did not let her, had prepared his horses from early morning, had been on social assistance since 2019, and had a medical certificate that she needed time before she could work. He earns about €3,000 a month in hand.

The court held she is owed maintenance, but “ma tqisx illi l-konvenut huwa affidabbli biżżejjed biex iħallasha manteniment fix-xahar anke fid-dawl tal-fatt illi huwa self employed u għalhekk jirregola d-dħul tiegħu hu” [it does not consider the husband reliable enough to pay her monthly maintenance, also because he is self-employed and so regulates his own income]. It assigned her his half of the stable bought in 2003, about €30,000 on the expert's valuation, in settlement.

The stable was community property although bought with money he inherited, because it was bought during the marriage.

On the rest of the division: the grandparents' house is no longer the matrimonial home and goes to the wife; the husband's claim for improvements failed for want of any proof. The cab licence and the cab go to him as the tools of his trade.

He must pay her €2,063.40, half the feed she bought for the horses while he was in prison less his share of their sale, and €1,387.50 in fines she paid that arose from his conduct, and he carries an outstanding LESA balance.

The farm lease near the house goes to her to keep the parties apart. Gold pawned to pay an electricity arrears was redeemed with community money, so no credit arises. Each keeps the accounts in their own name; unproven cash claims on both sides were left undecided.

She reverts to her maiden name under article 62(1). Costs against the husband.

Why it matters

A spouse who cannot be trusted to pay can be made to pay once, in kind, out of the division: the court used the assignment of assets as the vehicle for the maintenance the wife had asked for, and she had pleaded that alternative expressly. The judgment also shows what corroboration of a domestic-violence claim looks like in practice: the pre-sentencing report, the criminal record, the shelter's file and the social worker's contemporaneous notes did the work.

Where it sits

The case applies articles 2, 38, 40, 48, 51, 52, 55 and 62 of the Civil Code.

On the meaning of excesses, cruelty and grave injuries the court cited M.M. vs G.M. (Court of Appeal, 25 May 1942), E.T. vs E.T. (First Hall, 12 May 1925), C.A. vs B.A. (First Hall, 13 June 1967), M.M. vs V.M. (First Hall, 30 June 1961), A.C. vs A.C. (First Hall, 2 October 2003), J.B. pro et noe vs J.B.M. (Family Section, 9 June 2020), E.M. vs J.M. (Court of Appeal, 25 November 2016), A.B. vs C.B. (28 June 2018), C. utrinque (First Hall, 16 March 1989), H.G. vs L.G. (First Hall, 2 October 2003), A.P. vs M.P. (27 April 2017), A.M. vs G.M. (Court of Appeal, 21 February 1969), J.T. pro et noe vs J.T. (3 October 2003), G.M. vs J.M. (Court of Appeal, 6 October 2000) and C.Z. pro et noe vs A.Z. (First Hall, 27 June 2003).

On adultery proved by presumption it cited R.G. vs S.G. (First Hall, 1 October 2002), R.S. vs Dr A.V.G. noe (16 April 1953) and R.M. vs A.M. (27 June 1964). On the date of breakdown and on maintenance it followed the Court of Appeal in Z1 vs Z2 (13 January 2026) and Z1 vs Z2 (17 June 2025), the latter citing C.C. v. C.C. (23 November 2023) and C.M. v. L.M. (25 October 2013).

Source

Civil Court (Family Section), 166/2020, 24 June 2026: 166/2020.