Spousal maintenance — interim order — reasonable needs — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 82 — Ropiha v Ropiha [1979] 2 NZLR 245 — Langridge v Langridge (1987) 3 FRNZ 272 — Beric v Chaplain [2018] NZFC 7076 — Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 765 — C v G [2010] NZCA 128 — Hodson v Hodson HC Napier CIV-2011-441-618, 6 December 2011 — R K v D K HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-2052, 17 September 2010. The applicant sought an order for interim spousal maintenance against the respondent, pursuant to s 82 of the Family Proceedings Act (FPA). In order for a court to grant an interim spousal maintenance order, an application must have been made for a final maintenance order. The applicant had initially not done so, but made an oral application at the hearing which allowed the matter to proceed. Interim spousal maintenance orders are seen as a "stop-gap mechanism" for ensuring that one party is not subject to hardship or injustice while the substantive proceedings are heard. The factors for consideration are the reasonable needs of the applicant; any means available to the applicant for meeting those needs; and the respondent's ability to meet any shortfall. The parties had been married for some 14 years and had two children together. The mother had not been employed since the birth of the parties' first child. The respondent was the sole director of two companies. The Judge considered that it was unlikely that the mother would be able to find gainful employment during the timeframe of the interim order. Since October 2019 the respondent had been paying $1269 per week towards the applicant's weekly expenses and was able to meet this amount. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's legal and accounting costs be taken into consideration for the purposes of the application, but the Judge declined to do so as this was not in line with case law on the matter. The Judge made an interim spousal maintenance order in favour of the applicant of $1800 per week. Judgment Date: 6 July 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *