Unfounded abuse claims after a split cost a spouse acquests
The Family Section separated a couple for the husband's violence and cruelty, but stripped the wife of later acquests over unfounded abuse allegations made after they split. It also rebuilt the community from his income. It matters in contested separations with children.
Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima, sitting in the Civil Court (Family Section), on 2 June 2026 granted a wife a separation for her husband's violence, threats, grave injuries and cruelty. The court also held that the wife's unfounded allegations of abuse, made after the couple had split, were grave injuries against the husband. It ruled that she lost her right to half his acquests from the end of 2020, but awarded her €97,559 from his earlier income.
The facts
In SB vs LB, the parties married in 2017 and have three young children born close together. The husband left the matrimonial home after a violent incident between them in May 2018. The flat belongs to the husband alone.
The wife sued for separation, sole custody, maintenance and the right to stay in the flat. The husband counterclaimed for separation through her fault and for custody. He argued that she insulted him, suspected him of infidelity and was violent.
After the split, the wife filed applications from December 2020 alleging that the husband had committed indecent acts on the children. The court ordered supervised access. A magisterial inquiry was closed for lack of evidence, and the wife never paid the court-appointed psychiatrist, who therefore filed no report.
What the court held
On fault, the court relied on article 40 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta) and on case law defining cruelty as habitual acts that offend the other spouse. It watched videos in which the husband shouts at the children, pulls his son roughly off a chair and speaks to the wife with contempt. It found that he controlled all the money and left his family in need while earning a comfortable income.
The court rejected his claim that the wife's violence broke the marriage. After the May 2018 incident the police saw that the head injuries matched her account. It held that the husband's excesses and cruelty caused the breakdown.
The court found the abuse allegations unfounded and uncorroborated, and held that they amounted to grave injuries. They could not have broken the marriage, because they came after the parties had separated. Even so, it held: "din il-Qorti taghraf it-tort tal-attrici f’dan is-sens u tapplika l-effetti kontemplati fl-artikolu 48(1)(c) Kap 16" (this court recognises the plaintiff's fault in this sense and applies the effects set out in article 48(1)(c) of Chapter 16).
On the community of acquests under articles 1316 and 1320, the court found that the husband kept his whole income to himself and spent freely without accounting to his wife. Splitting the bank balances would not be fair.
Instead, the court added up his income from the wedding to the end of 2020, €209,118. It deducted €1,000 a month for family spending while they lived together and gave the wife half of the rest, €97,559.
On maintenance, the husband had cut payments during the pandemic on his own initiative. The court held that "l-ligi titkellem fuq ‘mezzi’ u mhux ‘introjtu’" (the law speaks of means and not income). It kept €250 a month for each child and €500 a month for the wife until the youngest child turns 18, finding that she could not work while caring for three children alone.
The father had stopped access himself, citing the unpaid psychiatrist. The court refused to order access, holding that it would expose the parties to more litigation and that therapeutic work with the children must come first. It gave the mother sole custody, but decisions on travel and choice of school stay joint.
The mother and the children may live in the husband's flat until the youngest turns 18. The court also applied article 48 and articles 51 to 55 against the husband, and ordered him to pay the costs.
Why it matters
A spouse who makes unfounded allegations after the separation can still be penalised under article 48, even though those allegations did not cause the breakdown. The penalty ran from the date of her first such application.
Where one spouse controlled the income, the court may rebuild the community from income records rather than divide what is left in the accounts. Lawyers should gather payslips and contracts for the whole marriage.
Where it sits
Separation for fault rests on articles 38, 40 and 41, and article 48 lists what the guilty spouse forfeits, including half the acquests made chiefly by the other spouse after a date the court fixes. Under article 51 the court may apply those effects where the ground is one in article 40. Here it applied them to both spouses, for different wrongs.
On cruelty the court cited the Court of Appeal (10 December 1951 and 25 November 2016), the First Hall of the Civil Court (30 June 1961 and 16 March 1898) and, on grave injuries, the First Hall (28 February 2003). On maintenance it followed the Court of Appeal (31 January 2019) and the First Hall (2 October 2003). On custody it relied on the Court of Appeal (25 November 1998 and 3 October 2008).
Source
Civil Court (Family Section), 273/2018, 2 June 2026.