I have always been led to believe that the law is about balance, fairness and justice. What is fair about someone being given a chunk of money that he/she has had no part in creating or acquiring? Simon Stephenson, Windermere

Isolated in their politically-correct world of legal purity, the law lords have just created 100'000's of new fatherless children, and broken men. Marriage as a partnership is dead. There is simply no moral, rational or emotional reason to get married if you are a man in England today. This is a disaster for English society. James Rowe, London

It's about time it was recognised that women who give up careers to bring up children also contribute to the marriage. There can't be many men who could carry on a lucrative career, and combine it with having a family, if they didn't have a wife who was willing to take on 95% of the child rearing. And how many women find it easy to carry on a career when they have to fit it around children who may be sick, be on school holidays, have doctors'/dentists' appointments, school plays, sports day, etc, unless, of course, you opt to hand all this over to a nanny, and then perhaps the nanny should get the divorce settlement. Lisa Ingham, York

I do agree with the results for Mrs McFarlance since she gave up her career only to support the one of her husband. In a case like this, when we definitely are talking about a sacrifice, the wife should be compensated. On the other hand, Mrs Miller has not contributed much to the marriage, she had not sacrificed anything, I would rather say that she only used he husband to reach some higher living standard. Does she deserve her 5 million then? Not at all! I can't agree with the judges decision upon her high living standard expectation,.Let her live the way she lived before getting married and work to get higher. Natalie Sokolova, Ostrava, Czech Republic

Firstly, pre-nups carry little legal weight in this country so are not a guarantee that your fortune will not be touched. Secondly, what temptation this ruling must put in the minds of young women newly wedded to a substantially more successful man - now they have him over a barrel, especially with the removal of consideration of conduct. "Buy me this house and car or else I'll divorce you and take your money". Thirdly, is this what men are really supposed to yearn for when they consider proposing to their sweetheart? That all their achievements in life so far are now to be subsumed into an amorphous 'one', to be divided in the event of divorce as if each partner has contributed the same proportion towards the whole? That may be the ideal but does it reflect the reality of most marriages! I for one will never get married now as this is not the sort of institution I want to be a part of. Alex MacGregor, Plymouth

My husband is a huge asset to my life, but the currency is happiness not filthy lucre. The concept of marrying a man with an eye to what he can provide for me, I find utterly grotesque. Then to sponge off someone like that is shameful. I have always expected to have to go out and earn my living and that did not change when I got married. Sarah Marquis, London

I am a 31 year old married for three years with no children and my wife (who is 26) decided to leave me for no reason other than she does not love me anymore. She is now according to my solicitors entitled to half of the value of the home even though in our three years together she has not paid a bill towards the home. The legal system for divorce is so biased towards women even if there is no fault of the man it is untrue. I agree that they should get some form of recompense for the contribution they do make around the home but should never be entitled to half if they have not contributed half. Grant Paynor, Colchester

Gold Diggers' Charter - The Law Lords never really think things through do they? This judgement will, as many of your correspondents have already pointed out, create an industry out of marrying well (although one might argue that this is already the second oldest profession). Surely the common sense approach would be to also take into account the earnings potential of both partners at the time of marriage. This is undoubtedly not a straight forward assessment to make, but wealthy city lawyer marrying wealthy city lawyer would clearly warrant a different outcome to wealthy city lawyer marrying very attractive, social climbing shop assistant. Name and address withheld

I feel this is a fair law for women. Let's remember, women have a biological clock men don't. Women are often stigmatised with "second hand rose" - who wants one? Name and address withheld

Both parents are responsible for supporting their children, and there's no question that if you are to maintain a relationship with an extremely busy person, you must be flexible in your time commitments -- i.e., not working, perhaps. Both of those factors should be accounted for. But there is absolutely no right to be supported in a luxury lifestyle just because you "expect" it. No matter who you are. If you didn't earn it, you don't keep it. Get over it. I may be a woman, but this attitude has irritated me for years. Mary, New York, USA

The £5m sets a dangerous precedent. All a woman has to do is find a man with a few million, marry him, wait a few years until its a bigger pot, divorce and get half the increase. The actual assets a man/woman has before marriage need to be ring fenced not the value of the asset at the point of marriage. The rest should then be split 50:50 - ie each party gets half of what they achieved together rather than the goldiggers charter we now have today. Al Hall, Newcastle

The Law Lords ruling offers a wonderful career opportunity for the ambitious woman; serial monogamy. Every few years a new wealthy husband and you get half of it. The further you progress as you continually double your money, the wealthier husband you can attract! Nigel MacNichol, Oakham

My question is, supposing the marriage suffers financial reverses. Assume for the moment the husband was financially well off before the marriage. Suppose the wife decides to "bail out" of the relationship,(say simply because they cannot afford the lifestyle she was accustomed to),taking what she considers her fair settlement. The husband not only loses emotionally, but considerably financially. Terrence Statzer, Hamilton, Ohio, USA