Reserved decision — interim spousal maintenance — reasonable needs — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 61, 62, 66 & 82(1) — Care of Children Act 2004 — Ropiha v Ropiha [1979] 2 NZLR 245 — Rawlings v Rawlings (spousal maintenance) [2099] NZFLR 643 — T v M [2006] NZFLR 561 — L v R, FC Auckland Fam-2007-004-001465, 30 September 2008 — Knight v Knight [2022] NZHC 62 — Marginson v Bahna [2016] NZHC 2835 — PB v PJB [2014] NZHC 3165 — Collins v Collins [2014] NZHC 2121 — M v B [2006] 25 FRNZ 171 (CA) — Z v Z (No 2) [1997] 2 NZFLR 258 — AMG v SSG, FC Auckland FAM-2011-004-00201, 16 December 2011 — B v B [2008] NZFLR 789 — C v G [2010] NZFLR 497 — Able v Able [2020] NZHC 177 — Richardson v Richardson [2011] NZCA 652, [2012] 1 NZLR 796 — Luyk v Luyk [2020] NZFLR 617 — GCH v SMH [2014] NZHC 211 — Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550 — Dalrymple v Dalrymple [2019] NZHC 637 — Tsoi v Hua [2006] NZFLR 560, (2006) 25 FRNZ (HC) — L v T [Spousal Maintenance] 2008 NZFLR 975. The parties were married for 20 years before separation. The applicant sought interim spousal maintenance of payments of $1,761.14 per week for six months. The applicant set out her weekly budget, and respondent challenged it. The main issues were: what were the applicant's reasonable needs; her ability to meet those needs; what were the respondent's reasonable needs; his ability to meet the applicant's reasonable needs; and whether the Court should exercise a discretion to make an interim spousal maintenance order. During the parties' marriage, they were supported by the respondent's family trust, to which they had interest free loans for their family home and for a business. The Court found that during the parties' marriage they lived an affluent lifestyle. The Court accepted the applicant's budget for her weekly needs, as it included the children's needs, diminished ability to rely on the trust for financial support, and expenses for the family home. The applicant's lifestyle expenses were not unreasonable. The Court found the applicant needed $3,402.34 per week to meet her reasonable needs. After calculating the applicant's income from her job of $1,719.87 and after deducting the budget, there was a shortfall of $1,682.47. The respondent had argued that the applicant could just increase her work hours and apply for a benefit, but this was rejected by the Court due to the applicant's time commitment to the children. Also benefit funds were not calculated in the applicant's ability to meet her needs. The Court found that the applicant did not have the ability to meet her reasonable needs. The respondent's annual expenses were $236,255.68. The Court found that the respondent had the ability to meet the applicant's reasonable needs, as he had access to funds and his income was high. The Court exercised its discretion to award the applicant an interim spousal maintenance of $1,682.47 per week for six months. The application was allowed. Judgment Date: 11 September 2022.