Interim spousal maintenance — reasonable needs — ability to pay — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 66 & 182 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 — Ropiha v Ropiha [1979] 2 NZLR 245 — T v H [2006] NZFLR 560 HC Auckland, 20 March 2006 — RKFH v DPLH [2012] NZFC 8276 — Hodson v Hodson [2012] NZFLR 252 — Dalrymple v Dalrymple [2019] NZHC 637 — C v G [Maintenance of former partner: period of liability] [2010] NZFLR 497. The applicant applied to the Court for an interim spousal maintenance order, pending the outcome of the parties' relationship property proceedings. The parties had been in a de facto relationship for some 11 years and had no children together. Four years into the relationship the respondent purchased a property with funds from the respondent's mother, and the parties had lived there until separation. The Judge looked at the financial evidence provided by the parties and calculated the applicant's weekly shortfall as $314 and the respondent's surplus as around $98. As such, the respondent did not have the ability to pay the applicant's shortfall. The respondent had savings, but to require the respondent to pay the applicant's shortfall out of her savings when the applicant had his own savings would not be reasonable. The application for interim spousal maintenance was dismissed. Costs were reserved until the conclusion of the relationship property proceedings. Judgment Date: 14 April 2022.