Marriage and divorce for richer, for poorer

Hammurabi's Code is still applicable: the duty to provide shelter, home, sustenance. That the carer is entitled to a dignified life, for life.

Gary Clement for The National
Powered by automated translation

"She made him put a house in her name." This was an alien concept to me - relayed 11 years ago - and it stuck in my mind. At the time I thought it odd that a successful independent feminist would insist on something so "base" before agreeing to marry. The person telling me the news was shocked. But all these years later, with everything that happened in between, I take my hat off to her. She had mitigated risk, hedged against uncertainty and secured her future self and offspring shelter, come what may.
The bride-to-be was at the top of her game, known globally for her work. He, a businessman very much in the money, with one failed marriage and grown-up daughters under his belt. She was his pursuit. They married. Had a child. Divorced. In her case, laws governing where she lived would never have awarded her a portion of the fortune built up during their union.
Having outright ownership of a choice property gave her a firm financial baseline - a good thing too, as her independent earnings had taken a back seat during their relationship.
Today I'm delving into divorce, duty and deals. It's been a summer of firsts on this front.
Last month the largest needs award ever made by an English court was handed down. I'm referring to the £75 million (Dh367.8m) won by Saudi billionaire Sheikh Walid Juffali's former wife - this, according to the presiding judge, to "ensure that adequate provision is made to meet her reasonable needs."
Christina Estrada, understandably, is thankful for access to British courts.
Note the word "needs". The ruling looked into how much was "reasonably needed" - and an annual budget of £2.5m was deemed just right. I'll share with you what were listed as must-haves later on.
The month before there was another first - majorly significant for those with less than magical lifestyles at their disposal: the former wife of a multimillionaire entrepreneur was awarded £300,000 - here's the thing: it happened more than 23 years after the couple divorced. They were poor when together. Had a child. Split. He went off to found his fortune and married again. She was the primary carer of their child.
This is when I skim the story and jump right into the comments. Woah. Such vitriol from terrified men fearing this could mean claims made against them with no apparent time limit. The concern pivots around money made after uncoupling - my view is that, when there are children involved, it is not acceptable the primary carer struggles and penny pinches, while the other parties.
Let us take a step away and read this from 1754 BC:
If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.
This is from Hammurabi's Code. It's the Babylonian king's declaration that a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children, so that she can raise them.
What enlightenment. Of course things have moved on since then, including the notion that a woman must have a husband, or be financially reliant on one. Or that it's the woman who needs the financial support.
But the likelihood is that it is the mother who's left holding the baby and who needs financial support. And so Hammurabi's Code is still applicable: the duty to provide shelter, home, sustenance. That the carer is entitled to a dignified life, for life.
Unfortunately divorce often brings with it animosity and more.
Of course the finances need to make sense. There's no point demanding unrealistic sums. But core to this is the recognition of dignity and financial well-being for both former partners. The two can be mutually exclusive, as in the case of the former husband who believed he'd hit on a winning formula when asking his former wife to stay on and become his new wife's housekeeper - he couldn't fathom why she and her lawyers wouldn't entertain it. She took him to court and was awarded nearly half of his £13.6m fortune.
Before I end, here are the expenses Ms Estrada put forward:
£55m for a new home in London
£4.4m country home in Henley
£1.02m a year clothing budget
£335,558 for staff including a butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, two cleaners, a chef and an office manager
£100,000 to maintain her home
£100,000 for food and drink
£482,416 to rent a yacht for two weeks, £4,824 to tip the crew
£247,233 for a Paris holiday at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz, plus £74,230 for the nanny's room
£103,000 for 12 nights in the south of France
£93,793 on beauty treatments
£58,000 for two luxury handbags
£23,000 for six casual handbags
£35,000 for 10 clutch handbags
£26,000 for a mobile phone
£14,850 for three new suitcases a year
£39,000 for two watches every year
£9,400 for four bottles of face cream
£4,000 for 15 pairs of sunglasses
As for the savvy feminist. We'll never know if she saw the writing on the wall before getting married, or if this was simply her version of a prenup. Sadly her former husband kidnapped their child at one point - so to think that he'd do right by his former wife and pay ongoing personal maintenance or alimony is probably not how things would've played out. Good thing she didn't need it.
pf@thenational.ae
Follow us on Twitter @TheNationalPF