Wife handed ALL ex-husband’s assets in divorce
He ‘washed his hands’ of his family, judges said
A WOMAN has been awarded her ex-husband’s entire fortune in what is believed to be the first divorce case of its kind in Britain.
Hospital consultant Dr Essam Aly complained it was ‘unfair’ but judges decided he thoroughly deserved the ‘unequal’ ruling against him – saying he had ‘washed his hands’ of his family when he left the UK.
He had treated his doctor wife Enas, 47, and their children so badly that she ought to leave the marriage with ‘ the lion’s share, if not all’ of the £550,000 assets, they ruled.
A family court heard Dr Aly, 54, who was an anaesthetist at Queen’s Hospital in Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, had ‘washed his hands’ of his family and taken up with a new woman in Bahrain.
He had not paid a penny in maintenance or child support since 2012.
Dr Aly had married his wife, a GP in Derby, in 2002 and they had a son and a daughter together.
But ten years later he ‘ abdicated responsibility’ for his British family and moved to the Gulf state where he started a relationship with a woman, underwent an Islamic marriage ceremony and had another child.
Last year, at the Birmingham Family Court, Mrs Aly had complained that she had received nothing from him since he left the UK.
She secured an injunction freezing his assets, resulting in the discovery of additional bank accounts.
Judge Mark Rogers then awarded her the proceeds of the sale of their £250,000 home in Burton, plus another £310,000 held in bank accounts.
Dr Aly appealed against the judgment, with his barrister Louise McCabe saying there was ‘ substantive unfairness’ in handing the wife what she said was actually ‘100 per cent’ of the couple’s assets. But yesterday three Court of Appeal judges dismissed his appeal.
Lord Justice McCombe, who heard the appeal with Lady Justice Macur and Lord Justice McFarlane, questioned what else a judge could do in such a case.
He said: ‘What was the judge supposed to do, faced with a serial defaulter, to make proper provision for this family? The wife is looking after the children and the father has washed his hands of them.’
Upholding the award, Lord Justice McFarlane said: ‘The judge had in front of him a case where he was entitled to hold there was no realistic expectation of getting any further maintenance out of the husband.
‘He was beyond the reach of enforcement of courts in this country.
‘He hadn’t been paying for the previous two years.
‘The wife was to have the sole responsibility and financial burden for bringing these children up.
‘The judge, therefore, concluded that she should have the lion’s share, if not all, of the assets, as she needed them to house herself in appropriate accommodation and make provision for these children. Thus it was that he awarded her a
‘He hadn’t paid for two years’ ‘What else could the judge do?’
far more substantial lump sum than would otherwise have been the case if equality was the only yardstick.
‘Looking to the future, there was no expectation that she could look to him for any future payment of maintenance and it was therefore necessary for her to achieve an award representing effectively most of the capital assets.’
Dr Aly’s barrister had argued it was wrong to say he had offered nothing – since there was evidence that he was willing to pay £40 a week in support for each child.
She said he was still a paying member of the General Medical Council, Medical Defence Union and British Medical Association, and hoped to return to Britain with his new family.
She had claimed that the first judge had effectively added up future maintenance payments and awarded them all in one go, something that she argued he was not allowed to do. ‘The court has an obligation to consider the husband’s needs,’ she said. But the Court of Appeal threw out the appeal.