Section 64A — Family Proceedings Act 1980: Spouses, civil union partners, or de facto partners must assume responsibility for own needs within reasonable time
Text of the provision Official document
64A Spouses, civil union partners, or de facto partners must assume responsibility for own needs within reasonable time (1) If a marriage or civil union is dissolved or, in the case of a de facto relationship, the de facto partners cease to live together,— (a) each spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner must assume responsibility, within a period of time that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the particular case, for meeting his or her own needs; and (b) on the expiry of that period of time, neither spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner is liable to maintain the other under section 64 . (2) Regardless of subsection (1) , if a marriage or civil union is dissolved or, in the case of a de facto relationship, the de facto partners cease to live together, 1 spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner ( party A ) is liable to maintain the other spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner ( party B ) under section 64 , to the extent that such maintenance is necessary to meet the reasonable needs of party B if, having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (3) ,— (a) it is unreasonable to require party B to do without maintenance from party A; and (b) it is reasonable to require party A to provide maintenance to party B. (3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are as follows: (a) the ages of the spouses, civil union partners, or de facto partners: (b) the duration of the marriage or civil union or de facto relationship: (c) the ability of the spouses, civil union partners, or de facto partners to become self-supporting, having regard to— (i) the effects of the division of functions within the marriage or civil union or de facto relationship while the spouses, civil union partners, or de facto partners were living together: (ii) the likely earning capacity of each spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner: (iii) the responsibilities of each spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner for the ongoing daily care of any minor or dependent children of the marriage or civil union or (as the case requires) any minor or dependent children of the de facto relationship after the dissolution of the marriage or civil union or (as the case requires) after the de facto partners ceased to live together: (iv) any other relevant circumstances. (4) If the marriage or civil union was immediately preceded by a de facto relationship between the husband and wife,— (a) for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) , the de facto relationship must be treated as if it were part of the marriage or civil union; and (b) for the purposes of subsection (3)(c)(i) , the effects of the division of functions within the marriage or civil union include the effects of the division of functions within that de facto relationship. Section 64A was inserted, as from 1 February 2002, by section 8 Family Proceedings Amendment Act 2001 (2001 No 7). The heading to section 64A was amended, as from 26 April 2005, by section 44(2) Civil Union Act 2004 (2004 No 102) by inserting the words “ , civil union partners, ” after the word “ Spouses ” . Section 64A was amended, as from 26 April 2005, by section 44(1) Civil Union Act 2004 (2004 No 102) by inserting the words “ or civil union ” after the word “ marriage ” wherever it appears. Subsections (1) to (3) were amended, as from 26 April 2005, by section 44(2) Civil Union Act 2004 (2004 No 102) by inserting the words “ , civil union partner, ” after the word “ spouse ” in each place where it appears. Subsections (3) were amended, as from 26 April 2005, by section 44(2) Civil Union Act 2004 (2004 No 102) by inserting the words “ , civil union partners, ” after the word “ spouses ” in each place where it appears.
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →