Hey dispairing of the system, London. Ever thought that maybe her 'dysfunctional behaviour' is a convenient excuse for his unreasonable behaviour? In most cases due to the weaknesses of these men it is their behaviour that has caused such catastrophes and they are so good at making out that they are blameless. You are clearly 'in love' and therefore blind. Wake up and smell the roses you idiot and get shot of him asap. He has failed spectacularly once why should he not do so again and then you'll be the one who is bewildered and distraught.

scorned wife of 26 years, Plymouth, UK

The law is not sexist, just unfair. I spent 20 years in poorly paid jobs following my ex around for his job. However I still contributed more than half of the upkeep of the home and children and did all the cooking, cleaning and childcare whilst he lived the life of a single man with all the comforts of a married home. My ex spent all his spare money on cars and clothes whereas I invested mine for the security of the children. In the divorce settlement, not only did he get half of all that I had scrimped and saved for my children's future education but my mother died just before we went to court so he got half of my inheritance. The law should treat each case on its merits, such as behaviour, length of marriage, contribution to family and home, the origin of the assets, and not just assume a 50/50 split.

BJ, london,

I am a full time Dad at home who has supported my wife through her debt problems and her career. I am the main carer for our children and have been for years and look after everything in the home extremely well. If my wife suddenly wanted a divorce I would expect the law to provide for me to keep the matrimonial home for the children along with maintanence from my wife, just as it would if a Mother was doing the same. I have also given up my career to support my wife who I still love very much. Women have to realise that in Divorce it's not about them and how much money they can gain, it's about the well being of the children.

Charles, Southampton, Hants

I read this article with great interest as my partner is at the negotiation stage of his divorce & the way the law is responding to the process of property/assets settlement is appalling. I believe that it is time that reasonable attention be given to the details around the decision for the marriage to end. Why - shld enter into the process. Because no assessment is made over behaviour of the two people involved, everyone is treated as if they have been (in the case of the woman) a good wife, a good Mother, a contributor, someone who deserves something. What if the person involved has never been any of those things? Isn't there a way of making the settlement take dysfunctional behaviour into account instead of assuming there is a right to live off their partner for the rest of their lives just because they are 'married' ?. Age & length of marriage are issues of serious concern in how the Law behaves. I agree the pendulum has swung far too far away from fair treatment for good men.

Despairing of the system, london, London

It's good to see a judge recognising all is not so bad for the wife; staying at home is has its drawbacks..."but it results in numerous joys and much satisfaction and pleasure.”

Whilst the father has missed out on this, and usually suffers even worse after divorce in this regard.

So why should he be penalised beyond reason in other ways. It's not like one can give back being in touch with his kids as they grow up, so why should a wife get a lot of money if only she'd gone out to work, had a career.

Reason is the word here and many of these huge payouts in recent times have been obscene, encouraging a cynical attitude of our society.

Love wont get a look in if this continues, they'll be more instability for kids and long term both women and men will be the losers.

S R, UK,

It's disheartening to see so many 'women-haters' on here, and so many men who are being hypocrites and then pointing the finger at women and saying women are hypocrites. Not all women are the same, not all men are the same, and no marriage is the same as another marriage. It's time to stop generalising, and assess each divorce individually. No one, male or female, really wins in a divorce. It's not just about money.
Most of the time, women have supported men who have gone to work, and given up their own lives, careers, dreams in order to do so, and to bring up the children. Women still make less money then men on average, have less opportunities to make money, or follow a career.; then are expected to be 'good wives and mothers' which includes a lot of supporting the man in his career, and sacrificing her own, by their spouses, and hold down a meager and unrewarding job. Notice I said job, and not career.

L Jackson, GREAT YARMOUTH, Norfolk

What a crock, she has no right to future earnings, thats why there is divorce, so women are free but men are forced into slavery, and as if 13 million was not enough, what a greedy so and so.

Richard, Thornlie, Perth AU

'But Ranjit Kaur, director of the Rights of Women advice group, said: “This woman would be in great difficulty to have a career as financially rewarding as her husband’s."'

Since when does this woman have a legal right to a career as financially rewarding as her ex-husband's?! Good grief, talk about privilege and entitlement!

Pardon the question from an ignorant Murrikan, but don't you have pre-nuptial agreements in Britain? If so, any wealthy or successful person marrying a much less wealthy or successful person should avail him/herself of one to avoid ridiculous situations like these. If they're not available, you might consider revising the laws to allow them. Pre-nups (as we call them here) have greatly reduced alimony awards (I think you call them maintenance payments) and unfair and excessive divorce settlements in the US.

Chris, Madison, Wis., USA

+1 for the marriage strike. Never get married boys, it's the worst business contract you'll ever sign!

Sean, Toronto,

You said "The balance of power in divorces tilted away from wives yesterday..."

What you should have said is: "The balance of power in divorces tilted a little less toward wives yesterday..."

Bert, England, UK

Lucy Day, London, you have women's groups to thank for your situation. Now you know what it's like being a man.

In the US, 70% of divorces are initiated by women, among marriages with college-educated women, the figure is 90%.

Stay single, men. Keep the marriage strike going.

Parson Jim, San Diego, CA, USA

Guys - have you never heard the expression 'it's cheaper to keep her'? Most normal women prefer stability and don't really want to get divorced i.e. they can be persuaded to work it out. Avoid the minefield and either don't marry, which can be pretty lonely, or manage your behaviour to avoid the big clashes.

Robert, Toronto,

All is fair in love and war. No sorry, in war you have the Geneva Convention. So, all is fair in love then!.

Phil, -, W Yourkshire

It is about time that women stopped playing both sides against the middle. Many females I have seen, alternate between portraying themselves as the "helpless little woman", and when convenient turn into "the all powerful emasculating b.... from hell"

Women have been emancipated for over two decades, ever since they gained control of their reproductive systems in the mid 60's. Women, married and single, have many more choices today than women in the 1940's and 1950's.

It is about time that women acknowledged that independence and stopped thinking that the man is a cow to be milked as & when desired..

Pat van der Veer, Wallasey, near Liverpool, U.K.

The lesson in this for women seems to be "don't have kids" - you are far better off pursuing your own successful career than devoting years of your life to raising the children (which are 50% your husband's), only to be told on divorce that you are greedy and selfish for demanding a 50% stake in the *tangible* fruits of the marriage. Your husband enjoys all of the benefits of being a father (when it is your hard work which has gone into raising the children while dad was off pursuing his high-powered overseas career) and continues to do so after the divorce - why should you then give up your 50% interest in the other half of the marriage? Marriage is a *joint* endeavour -providing and caring for the family are two halves of a whole, and should be (and generally are) treated as such by the divorce courts.

Lizzy, Horsham,

Doesn't matter if you marry or not Damian their already talking about taking common law husbands to the cleaners too. This is a sexist country where the women always come out on top

John, Salford, England

Both partners have the moral right to enjoy all the worldly goods of the marriage. That has got to be the starting point.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

The most sensible advice to any man who has more than just a few quid behind him - don't marry. Plain and simple. Diss the marriage stakes. You can still have your fun without signing your hard earned pennies to the increasing number of money grabbing females out there who are more concerned about your bank balance than your own personal welfare. Steer clear of the altar or the registry office, you blokes. But of course in a free country, the choice is yours.

Damian, Herefordshire, England

It seems crazy to me that this judge is condemning a woman for having been a *teacher* before settling down to form a marriage with a banker and have 4 kids. Does that mean if she'd been devoting her life to charity work she would be worth even less?

I remember the 1980s and in those days men who aspired to careers in the city were loathe to go out with women who planned well-paid careers as in the world of banking that seems to make men look less masculine and thus damages their careers.

If back in the 1980s Mrs H had been dedicated to training as a neurosurgeon Mr H would never have been thought suitable for his posting to the Tokyo bank.

Anne Smith, Brighton,

My brother is divorcing from his pathologically spendthrift wife. In mediation she took half the value of the house and, so far, half his savings destined to pay for his daughter's wedding and university costs. All the while, she has, since September 2006, been living in the family home for absolutely nothing, although earning a living and running up more debt (even borrowing from her son to pay for a car and a holiday in Spain!), and spinning the divorce out with futile (and expensive!) solicitors' letters about details of the mediation settlement, to which she agreed.
She has a perfect legal right to behave in this way. she's even murmuring about maintenance now. My brother is desperate, and impotent.
Any ideas on what he could do?

Stephen, Angers, France

This is not about men vs women. I paid my stay at home husband a small fotune and narrowly escaped a threatened levy on future earnings. It is insulting that the law equates the value of my hard work and talent with that of a part time caregiver, supported by nannies. The market place doesn't so why does the legal system? My children also suffered the shame of their father being absolved from any financial support. It changed their view of him for life. I on the other hand, made a huge sacrifice in the time not spent with the kids, let alone the stress of the battle to climb the corporate ladder. Women should take responsibility for their own financial well being and no one should be financially dependent on another. It is the best advice a women can give her daughter.

Lucy Day, London,

Live together. Have kids if you like, but never marry if you're a man who's got a financially lucrative job. Or, if you do, lock your safety in with a detailed and all-encompassing premarital agreement written by an expert attorney that is challenge-proof.

M.Paul, Springfield, USA

This doesn't change a thing. All it is saying is that a man doesn't have to pay further funds to an ex-wife so long as he has coughed up enough to her already.

This doesn't change a thing gentleman. The only way us men can ensure our financial security in later life is to avoid marriage and avoid co-habitation.

Duncan, England,

I think it's only fair and hopefully will encourage women to still carry on with their career instead of staying at home for many years after childbirth to be a 'full-time' mum.

Jane, London,

But Ranjit Kaur, director of the Rights of Women advice group, said: “This woman would be in great difficulty to have a career as financially rewarding as her husband’s. She sacrificed to invest in the family helping him to achieve the position he has achieved.” It attitudes like this that still irk me even though I've been a Men's Rights Activist now for 15 years.

The point that always seems to be ignored is that this man (and most other fathers) has probably made a bigger sacrifice as in order to "climb the corporate ladder" to PROVIDE for his family he has not seen his child(ren) grow up.

R.K, Manchester,

What's always been interesting is that when feminists are bleating on about "women's rights" and "equality" they never mention the divorce laws.

Strange, eh?

Jon Leigh, Southern, France

Great irony that economic realities have restored marriage for life as the best option for men. Long live the bit on the side. Just don't be like the man who divorced his wife to marry his mistress, then divorced his wife to marry his mistress.....

james, NYC,

We live in the most sexually prejudiced country in the world where 'family' law is concerned and its about time something was done to address the in-equity. Hopefully this will be the first of many changes in favour of men

peter dawson, edinburgh, scotland

The whole english divorce system is in need of overhaul. Why politicians dont get onto this vote winner is a mystery to me. For most of us there are not these huge assets to divy out there is just financial ruin. The older you are when you marry and divorce the more ruinous it is. What needs changing, prior assets reverting to original owner, or as in scotland only splitting marital assets. Childcare should start negociations at 50-50. The current system is so against men it is cruel. Child maintainace must take account of former wifes income and new partner. My ex wife and her husband now earn twice as much as i do, yet i have ruinous payments which neither allow me a life nor allow me to try and rebuild a pension sufficient to allow me retire in an what is not too distant future. I could go on, the pendulam has swung too far. This judgement will do nothing to help most of us who have very little to split and face impoverished future and old age.

B Roke, London, UK

As a woman who had to pay a huge sum out to a teacher husband after a similarly long marrriage can I just object to the heading that wives always take and men give. Plenty of women pay out to men on divorce. Let's not be sexist about it. pound;13m is far too large. It's a clean break like I could just about afford and at a similar age to the man there that's what one always wants but even so it's too large a lump sum. Important point in this case is there was no career sacrifice. Mrs McFarlane might have been a partner at Freshfields on £1m a year so her sacrifice as stay at home parent was clear. In a case like mine where the husband didn't give up work but just earned a lot less or here where the lower earner would only at best have earned a modest sum teaching that is hugely different and less should be awarded.

Susan, London,

Hooray for common sense; something not often related to (matrimonial) law.

That judgement made so much sense to me - women, get over it; you've had it too good for too long and at last someone has had the spheres to put things right a little.

Npw how's about some more common sense regards custody?

Well done that judge!

A.N.Thusiast, EXETER, Glorius Devon

''a wife is entitled to be kept in the manner to which she has become accustomed'' - is the husband also entitld to live in the manner to which he is accusomed ? It would be nice, but when you realise that one income now has to pay for 2 houses you understand the mathematical impossibility of it. Divorce results in both becoming less well off.

What about the kids in all of this ? When a woman devotes her time to stopping the kids knowing their dad - why should she receive anything from him at all ?

alain williams, watford, uk

In considering a wife's potential earnings (or earnings foregone) wouldnt it be right to include money she might obtain from divorce settlements? A woman might only have had a teachers salary but she could have divorced another rich man or even more than one. Shouldn't this be an argument for increasing the settlement - that in staying married she had foregone other potential divorce settlements? It seems only fair and logical.

Bob T, London, UK

Only a few days ago I was reading about how many women are still unmarried in their late thirties. Is anyone surprised?

Retired, Beaconsfield, England

My ex brought me back to the UK to divorce me. Got more as a tax free lump sum than she would have earned gross in her lifetime in her chosen profession and continues to bleed me for maintenance despite the children fleeing the nest. Her role as a part-time homemaker was easier being married to me than it would have been married to someone who couldn't afford private schools and maids so sets different values on the role of 'homemaker' in law. Can't see why it's an equal contribution unless spotting a good catch is the definition of equal as Jase suggested in the earlier comment. My only hopes are, in this life time, that she drinks and drives and ultimately that I get reincarnated as a female.

Dave, Not in the UK,

i have to say that i am pleased with this outcome. I am 2 weeks away from a final hearing where my family wealth is at stake, not mine.

It seems as though cirtain women today only have one reason when they leave school for living, TO FIND A RICH HUSBAND, MARRY HIM, HAVE A CHILD AND THEN DIVORCE HIM!

Its about time we take a common sense ruling and if one side has more capability and are willing to raise the children after a break up they should be able to do so, not just presuming the child should stay with the mother, of course leaving her to comand extautionate amounts of so called "Child Support". I wonder how much is actually spent on the child, in my experience very little!

Lets see some fair and amicable practices put in place like a percentage to length of marriage chart to make sure people get married for the right reasons and stick at it instead of marriage for reward as it is now!

matthew, broxbourne, hertfordshire

I'm sure the wife will get on fine with £13 million in cash and assets considering most people earning a normal job will probably not accumulate six figures in their bank accounts in their lifetime.

Keith, Croydon,

"Marrage is still clearly the best career move for a woman."

Nearly stating the obvious - the obvious bit missing is...

"Marrage is still clearly the best career move for a woman, and the worst possible for a man."

Joseph White, Loughborough, Leics UK

A woman gets a house worth £2.7 Million, £13 Million in cash and still wanted more? These types of demands have nothing to with a woman needing money to ‘survive’, most of these claims are based on spite and that that very female character trait of wanting to exact revenge for the end of a relationship and hit the man where it hurts.

Anyone who can’t ‘survive’ on £13 Million pounds should go for financial counselling or see a psychiatrist.

Victor, London,

"But Ranjit Kaur, director of the Rights of Women advice group, said: “This woman would be in great difficulty to have a career as financially rewarding as her husband’s. She sacrificed to invest in the family helping him to achieve the position he has achieved."

She has still done much better that she would have done as a teacher! Marrage is still clearly the best career move for a woman.

Jase, somerset,

Talk about greedy 13.5 million and you still want more, I suppose that the sky is no longer the limit these days!

Marquess, Bangkok ,