This is clear from the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973.
In this case, Naomi may file a petition for ancillary relief, in particular an order for maintenance pending suit pursuant to 2.53 of The Family Proceeding Rules 1991. It must be made clear that though a divorce terminates a marriage, it does not terminate the relations of the spouse to each other, in the sense that the court may validly order one spouse to financially support the other, particularly if there is a disparity in financial resources.
Upon receipt of the application for ancillary relief, the court fixes a first appointment and then provides notice to both parties, particularly to the spouse from whom support is demanded. This is to ensure that the requirements of due process are met.
Interim orders may also be made by the court in cases wherein the immediate financial assistance is needed. Naomi can avail of this remedy to ensure that her needs are met and she receives uninterrupted support. Of course, Naomi must present evidence to prove that she is indeed in need of financial support. This is to prevent turning an already-painful divorce process into an opportunistic game. The evidentiary requirements may be found in the Family Proceeding Rules 1991. Pursuant to these Rules -
General provisions as to evidence etc on application for ancillary relief
2.58-(1)A petitioner or respondent who has applied for ancillary relief in his petition or answer and who intends to proceed with the application before a district judge shall, subject to rule 2.6 7, file a notice in Form M 1 3 and within four days after doing so serve a copy on the other spouse.
(2)Where an application is made for ancillary relief, not being an application to which rule 2.61 applies, the notice in Form M I I or M 1 3, as the case may be, shall unless otherwise directed be supported by an affidavit by the applicant containing full particulars of his property and income, and stating the facts relied on in support of the application.
(3)Within 28 days after the service of an affidavit under paragraph (2) or within such other time as the court may fix, the respondent to the application shall file an affidavit in answer containing full particulars of his property and income.
Naomi may also petition the Court for an issuance of a maintenance order, which will allow Joshua to pay her in increments. A maintenance order may be nominal or specific. It is nominal if there is uncertainty as to the capacity to pay of the respondent and there is a need to keep the action alive. It is specific if definite dates have been set.
Moreover, though Naomi and Joshua have been married for only through years, the she is entitled to the same rights as a spouse after a long-term marriage. This is clear in a very recent House of Lords decision. In the case of Miller v. Miller (2006 UKHL 24), the Court held that the benchmark for division should be equal shares, and the length of a marriage should not be a consideration. Three main considerations should be looked upon - financial needs,