Spousal maintenance — order for interim maintenance — vary or suspend maintenance — reasonable needs — change of circumstances — full disclosure — unfettered discretion — balance of probabilities — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 81, 94 & 99 — H v C (1985) 3 NZFLR 749 FC — Mason v Mason and the Maintenance Officer FC Nelson, FP042/75/00, 14 December 2000 — Frost v Frost (1989) 5 FRNZ 655 — Hagglow v Hagglow [1969] NZLR 339 — Hudson-Owen v Hudson-Owen (High Court, Rotorua, 18 August 1981, M134/81, Greig J — Caron v Caruana [1975] 2 NZLR 372 — Maintenance Officer v Stark [1977] 1 NZLR 78, 82 — Shrimski v Shrimski (1985) 3 NZFLR 707. The respondent sought an order under s 99 of the Family Proceedings Act to discharge an order for interim spousal maintenance made the previous year. The interim maintenance order had first been granted in 2019, and the respondent had previously made an application under s 99 but failed to pursue it. The respondent claimed that he was no longer able to pay the maintenance on his present income (with his tourism business affected by the COVID-19 pandemic), and that the applicant had not properly disclosed all sources of income as required at the original maintenance application. The applicant argued that the respondent's earnings were higher than stated to the Court, that he had other high-value undeclared assets, and that his living situation was contrary to his claims. The Court accepted the respondent's financial evidence from IRD and found the applicant's evidence to be unreliable. The Judge was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to make an order in favour of the respondent and suspended the maintenance order, pending the resolution of the applicant's application for final maintenance and determination of the outstanding relationship property proceedings. Judgment Date: 29 April 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *