Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

Resolution deprecates use of the term “meal ticket for life”

But will it make any difference?

I have been following – at a distance – the annual conference of Resolution, the association of family lawyers. I could hardly do otherwise, my Twitter timeline being filled with tweets detailing practically every last word uttered by the speakers at the conference.

Amongst those utterances was the expressed desire, supported clearly by many of the conference faithful, that the term ‘meal ticket for life’ be consigned to the dustbin of history. That term did, of course, recently raise its ugly head in the case Waggott v Waggott.

For those who are not familiar with it the term ‘meal ticket for life’ refers to an award of maintenance payable by one spouse, most often the husband, to the other spouse, most often the wife, that will continue for the rest of their joint lives, i.e. until one of them dies. As may be obvious, the term is often used in a disapproving way, by those who do not consider that it is right that one spouse should potentially be liable to continue to maintain the other for the rest of their life. Why should one spouse have that burden? Why should the other spouse not be expected to maintain themselves?

Well, as Lord Justice Moylan said in Waggott, sometimes it is appropriate for a spouse, usually the wife, to be awarded maintenance for life. The classic example of that is the case of the long marriage in which the wife has foregone a career to look after the home and bring up the family, and the marriage breaks down when she is at or near retirement age, and therefore no longer in a position to start, or re-start, a career and therefore maintain herself to an appropriate level. In such a case, a joint lives maintenance order may well be appropriate, especially if there is insufficient ‘spare’ capital that the wife could use to raise an income for herself.

However, the reality is that lifetime maintenance orders are only appropriate in a tiny percentage of cases. What is more, back in 1984 Parliament passed the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act, which introduced an amendment into the existing law on financial settlements on divorce, aimed at encouraging the courts to limit the duration of maintenance orders whenever possible (I explained the amendment in rather more detail in this post). I don’t have any figures, but no doubt that amendment led to the courts making far fewer joint lives maintenance orders.

So yes, the term ‘meal ticket for life’ is really pretty superfluous these days. Most husbands can rest assured that they will not be required to continue to maintain their former spouses indefinitely. The court will either order a clean break, with no on-going liability to the other spouse, or will award the other spouse maintenance for only a limited period, long enough to give them time to regain their financial independence.

In these circumstances one can see why Mrs Waggott’s counsel was a little irritated by the term being used in the “recent public debate about how the courts determine a spouse’s claim for maintenance”, perhaps suggesting that his client was being mercenary, seeking something that no wife should really be entitled to. Similarly, one can see why Resolution members consider the term to be unhelpful and misleading.

However, the simple fact of the matter is that despite the passage of more than thirty years since the 1984 Act, the term ‘meal ticket for life’ is still ingrained in the national lexicon. Nothing that Resolution, or anyone else for that matter, can say or do will change that. Whether they like it or not, it will continue to be used in the popular media, just like that other family lawyer’s favourite: the ‘quickie divorce’.

Still, in the grand scheme of things the idea of the ‘meal ticket for life’ is surely not that important. After all, how many people actually expect their (former) spouse to maintain them for the rest of their life? Very few, I would guess.

John Bolch often wonders how he ever became a family lawyer. He no longer practises, but has instead earned a reputation as one of the UK's best-known family law bloggers, with his content now supporting our divorce lawyers and child custody lawyers

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. Andrew says:

    Joint life orders are certainly unusual these days; but when they are made the description “meal ticket for life” is still more or less correct. More or less, because of course if the husband dies first that is the end of the order unless it is secured which is exceedingly rare; and of course it can be varied or ended if for example he retires. But is it not a nonsense and a disgrace that a court can even be asked to tell him that he cannot get off the hamster wheel just yet?

  2. spinner says:

    “Why should the other spouse not be expected to maintain themselves?” – They should, through their own efforts, not through the efforts of an ex partner as in every other major country in the world.

    “So yes, the term ‘meal ticket for life’ is really pretty superfluous these days.” – When there are no more lifetime maintenance orders, then it will be superfluous until then it’s exactly what it is which is why the term was coined and it stuck.

  3. Barbara says:

    My husband has been divorced from his ex wife for 32 years. She still contacts him every month “where’s my money”? She is in her mid 60’s and owns a home which my husband paid for. When he divorced her he gave her the family home plus maintenance. Ten years later we had to sell our home and give her the equity (a judgement found to be illegal when we appealed) but what was done was done. The UK judge said that people who live in America (we had to move for his employment) rent and don’t own homes. My husband and I have struggled financially for 20 years plus. She has never worked and my husband is her atm. Their grown son with his own family says that she recently told him she will get her Maintenence until my husband dies. Then she said she would simply marry someone else. Judges in the high court of London have allowed this to go on. She recently sold her paid for home, bought another and took out a mortgage which was financially completely unnecessary. She put extra money in the bank and when she ever chooses to go back to court for more money,which she will, the “mortgage” will be one of her playing cards. The courts have allowed this to happen so I can tell you now MEAL TICKET FOR LIFE is real still in the year 2020!

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for? (Optional)

Read about how we use your data in our Privacy Policy. To opt out at any time, select ‘unsubscribe’ in any of our marketing communications, or email [email protected].

Privacy Policy