Court protects spouse due to serious domestic violence

A judgment delivered on 23 February 2026 by the Civil Court (Family Section) in a case presided by Judge Jacqueline Padovani Grima, confirmed that domestic violence is a ground for separation under civil law.

The court decreed that the marriage breakdown was attributable to the husband’s serious misconduct that included domestic violence, arson of the family home, and financial difficulties that were a consequence of his own actions.

Consequently, the court found that the husband had no grounds to claim maintenance from his wife.

The parties married in 1995 and had two daughters. According to the wife, problems began even before the wedding due to the husband’s alcohol abuse. The wife described a long pattern of abusive conduct, including being punched, threatened with knives, and repeatedly verbally humiliated in front of their children.

The court was also presented with criminal judgments confirming that in 2017, the husband admitted to assaulting his wife and causing slight injuries. This led to a protection order. Furthermore, in 2019, the husband also admitted setting fire to the matrimonial home. He was sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment.

The daughters’ testimony was significant in this case. They both described growing up in an environment dominated by fear and unpredictability. Their father’s alcohol consumption was described as constant and excessive.

One daughter testified that at the age of 16 she experienced suicidal thoughts due to the traumatic home environment. She also described feeling safer at work or abroad than inside her own home.

Both daughters confirmed that, although their father provided financially, he failed to provide emotional stability or a safe domestic environment. The court took note of the lasting psychological harm suffered by the children and their continued need for therapy.

While the husband did not contest the fact of separation itself, he strongly contested responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage and resisted the financial consequences sought by the wife.

The husband openly admitted that he suffered from alcohol dependency. He acknowledged that his drinking worsened during the marriage, particularly when he began to feel financial pressure as the family’s primary breadwinner. The husband also admitted to setting fire to the matrimonial home in 2019, an act for which he was criminally convicted. However, he attempted to minimise the gravity by stating that the damages were limited in scope. He also claimed that he later sought to repair the damage. However, despite his best efforts, the court ruled that rather than mitigating liability in civil proceedings, his admission reinforced the seriousness of his conduct.

The husband argued that the stress of being the sole or primary income earner contributed to his drinking and deterioration. However, documentary evidence showed that he received social assistance and unemployment benefits over the years, somewhat tempering the portrayal of uninterrupted financial stability.

A central pillar of his defence was that the wife failed to support him adequately during his rehabilitation efforts. The husband claimed that she failed to attend family therapy sessions and that he lacked encouragement at a crucial stage of recovery. The professional evidence, however, indicated that while he did complete one programme, he struggled with accountability and was eventually dismissed from a later rehabilitation initiative due to behavioural issues.

In a notable counterclaim, the husband sought maintenance from the wife, basing it on his imprisonment, loss of employment and alleged physical health problems. Maintenance is generally unavailable to a spouse whose serious fault caused the breakdown of the marriage. Therefore ultimately, his claim did not succeed.

The court concluded that there are grounds for separation and supported the wife’s claim that the marriage had broken down due to sustained domestic violence, psychological abuse and serious misconduct.

The court also held that the fault was exclusively attributable to the husband and rejected his claims for maintenance. Financial hardship resulted from his own criminal conduct. However, the wife too sought maintenance, claiming she had been largely economically dependent during the marriage, she was over 50 years old and that her employment prospects were limited after years outside the workforce. Given the exclusive fault of the husband and the wife’s limited earning capacity, the court upheld her entitlement to maintenance.

The court also ordered the dissolution of community of acquests and its liquidation in accordance with law.

The court also ordered that the wife be granted protection. The husband’s request that the property be sold and proceeds divided equally was not upheld in the manner he requested.