Maintenance reduction pending increase application dismissed as unjustified without arrears context.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against a District Court order that reduced monthly maintenance from £14 to £10 pending an application to increase it to £25. The respondent argued the reduction was necessary while the increase application was adjourned, but the court found no justification for lowering payments when the goal was an increase rather than arrears. Consequently, the interim order was set aside because reducing the existing obligation without a specific need for arrears payments was legally unsupported.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAMaintenance Act; Civil Procedure Rules: A court cannot reduce maintenance payable under a valid order pending an application to increase it, unless arrears are involved.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*198] 1972 September 21
(TRLANTARYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, L. LOIZOU, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Nina Georghiadou,
Appellant,
v.
Lellos Georghiades,
Respondent.
(Civil Appeal No. 5101).
Maintenance - Payable under a previous Court order - Reduction pending the determination of an application for its increase - Not justified - Set aside.
E. Markidou, (Mrs.), far the Appellant.
The Respondent appears in person.
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court was delivered by:
TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.: In this case the [*199] appellant has appealed against an order of the District Court of Nicosia, dated 28th June, 1972, by means of which the amount of ￡14 per month payable by the respondent to the appellant for the maintenance of their children, by virtue of a Court Order dated 12th October, 1961, was reduced to ￡10 per. month pending the determination of an application filed by the appellant for the increase of the said amount to ￡25 per month. On the 28th June, 1972, the application of the appellant was not dealt with on its merits but was adjourned for hearing to the 23rd September, 1972; but, on the former date, the respondent declared that he was in a position to pay ￡10 per month and the Court below made the interim order complained of by the appellant in this appeal.
In our view there existed no justification at all for making the order appealed from, and thereby provisionally reducing the amount of maintenance payable under an order which was in force and which was sought to be varied by increasing, and not decreasing, the amount payable thereunder; this was not an instance in which an application was made for the payment of arrears of maintenance and in which the judge could perhaps have made an .interim order for payments towards the amount of the arrears pending the determination of the application.
In the result the appeal is allowed.
The costs of this appeal to be determined by the District Court when dealing with the merits of the application.
Appeal allowed. Order
for costs as above.