The Appeals Court has ordered that a wife, who suffers from mental health issues, to find a full-time job within three months of the judgement. This was held by the Court of Appeal presided over by the Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Robert Mangion and Grazio Mercieca, delivered on 17 June 2025 in a case involving an estranged couple.
The wife, who was the plaintiff, asked the court to declare her separation from her husband. She claimed to have been subjected to cruelty. She also asked the Court to order that she receive maintenance. The husband did not object to the separation but blamed his wife for causing the separation and denied being violent towards her. He also did not want to pay maintenance because she is capable of working. He filed a counter-claim accusing his wife of being violent.
The First Court allowed the separation of the couple, but rejected the claim to order the husband to pay maintenance.
The First Court in its judgement explained that the wife accused the husband of adultery and of being cruel. The evidence produced by the parties was diametrically opposed to each other. The first years of marriage were happy and the husband was the main earner of the family, while the wife took care of the children, their studies and home finances. The wife stopped working when she got married in 1986.
According to the husband, the wife became obsessive over him. A psychiatrist testified that the husband had admitted to having an affair. The wife had asked several people close to her husband about his affair. She also engaged a private investigator and followed her husband around. The wife was acting strange and was committed to Mount Carmel Hospital after suffering from mental illness as a result of her husband’s infidelity. However, the First Court accused the wife of not helping herself to get out of this situation and of not seeking help.
The Court held that although it was not necessary that one sees the adultery take place in order for it to be proved, the evidence presented must leave no doubt in the mind of the judge. In this case, the Court did not believe that there was adultery on the part of the husband despite him admitting to having a sexual relationship on one occasion. The Court did not classify this as adultery, although it affected the marriage.
The Court then blamed the wife for tormenting the husband instead of trying to find a solution. Neither did the court accept that she suffered from mental illness.
The Court apportioned blame for the separation equally on both the parties and therefore, the wife should not be paid maintenance by the husband because she was in a position to work. The Court said the wife had been capable of taking care of the children—today adults—and had also handled the family finances. The Court noted that the wife lives with her sister and therefore potentially does not need any maintenance from the husband.
The wife filed an appeal on the grounds that the First Court considered her mental illness as an excuse. Although the psychiatrist said that the diagnosis was not correct, he still confirmed she suffered from mental illness. The correct diagnosis was that she suffered from paranoid psychosis and not psychosis. This was the reason why she was admitted to Mount Carmel Hospital. The wife held that the First Court gave the impression her mental illness was an opportunistic episode.
The second ground of appeal was that the wife should not have been held responsible for the separation from her husband. The husband had always pushed back against the charge of adultery, and it was only in the last phase of the case, where he admitted to it.
The Court of Appeal first considered the first ground of appeal. The Court of Appeal pointed out that it should not disturb the analysis of the First Court, unless it is of the opinion that the analysis was unreasonable or contradictory. Another principle is found in Article 562 of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure which states that who alleges must prove and that the evidence must substantiate the allegation. If the plaintiff does not prove their claims, then the defendant is declared not responsible. If the defendant fails to prove their pleas, this does not free the plaintiff from proving the claims. This was held in Emanuel Ellul et vs Anthony Busuttil decided by the Court of Appeal on 7 May 2010.
The Court pointed out that once the husband did not appeal, the decision that he was responsible for excess and cruelty towards the wife was final. Therefore, the Appeals Court had to see whether the wife was responsible for the separation of the marriage equally to her husband or else whether the husband was fully responsible.
The evidence showed that the wife was admitted to Mount Carmel Hospital for a couple of weeks and afterwards was cared for by a doctor. The illusion of infidelity of the husband was wrongly diagnosed as psychosis. She was given the wrong treatment and this treatment was stopped.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the wife’s mental health problems emerged when the husband had an extra-matrimonial affair. The Appeals Court held that the husband was guilty of cruelty through his infidelity. It added that one episode of infidelity is sufficient to be detrimental to the marriage. The husband’s infidelity was proven and this affected the wife’s mental health.
But the Appeals Court did not let the wife off the hook. It disagreed with the First Court in that she was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage equally to her husband and instead apportioned blame on the basis of three quarters to the husband and a quarter to the wife.
As to the maintenance issue, the wife explained that she suffers from mental illness and although in the past she took care of her children and does some housekeeping at her sister’s house, she is not capable of working for third parties. She receives benefits for being her brother’s carer.
The husband argued that the wife is capable of working and she left the matrimonial home without the Court’s authorisation. In 2022, she received €8,317 as an Increased Carer’s Allowance and also received his maintenance of €250. The husband said that all he receives is a pension of €885 per month.
The Court of Appeal held that the Civil Code bars the Court from giving maintenance to a spouse if that spouse is guilty of adultery or abandonment or else because of cruelty. The Civil Code further states that maintenance must be calculated according to the means of the party who is paying and the need of the party receiving maintenance. Maintenance is given when there is the need. Unemployment does not exempt a party from paying maintenance and therefore a pension is also not exempt from paying maintenance. If the circumstances change in the future one of the parties may ask the court to change its decision on maintenance.
The Court of Appeal held that there is no reason for the wife to lose her right of maintenance. At the same time the Court of Appeal held that the wife can still find a full-time job, since she already takes care of her brother and receives payment from the government. The husband is already paying €250 per month as maintenance and ordered that he continue to pay that amount for three months until she finds a full-time job.
Av. Malcolm Mifsud
Founding Partner
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
