A woman has been ordered to pay half of her ex-husband?s ?160,000 gender reassignment surgery bill after a judge ruled the operation was a ?need?, not a ?whim?.

The 60-year-old woman had argued it was unfair for her to contribute ?80,000 towards the cost of the surgery, saying her former spouse?s decision to transition was the reason their marriage ended.

But Judge Stuart Farquhar, sitting at Brighton Family Court, said it was ?reasonable? for the couple to split the cost ?out of joint resources?.

The pair, who cannot be named for legal reasons, met in London in the late 1990s while working in the financial sector and married in 2002. They went on to enjoy what the court described as an ?international lifestyle?, building up assets worth around ?3 million and owning property abroad.

They had two children, who were privately educated and are now at university.

In 2022, the then-58-year-old husband revealed to his wife that he intended to transition to a woman and began hormone therapy. The wife said she had no idea of her spouse?s desire to transition until the marriage had broken down, describing it as ?devastating and a big surprise?.

She told the court she was ?deeply shocked? by her partner?s announcement ?that she intended to live her new life as a lesbian woman?. She filed for divorce two months later.

The gender reassignment surgery took place in 2024, two years after their separation, and was paid for from a joint bank account.

The ?160,000 cost of the operation became one of the most contentious issues in the divorce proceedings, which are believed to have cost the couple nearly ?1 million in legal fees.

During the hearing, the ex-husband claimed he was unable to afford court-ordered maintenance payments to his former wife and their children. However, the court heard he had spent ?14,000 on his American Express card in a single month ? mostly on clothing, nails, jewellery, and dining out. He also spent ?13,000 on tattoos over a six-month period.

He argued that the surgery should be ?treated in the way of any other medical costs?, telling the court: ?It would be like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery??

Medical evidence presented at the hearing confirmed he had suffered from gender dysphoria and experienced ?significant anxiety, depression and distress?.

?You marry a trans person. You live with a trans person. You benefit from a trans person. They are suicidal and you support them,? he told the court.

His ex-wife insisted the operation should have been paid for from his personal assets, given that his decision to transition had ?caused the end of the marriage?.

While Judge Farquhar acknowledged that the ex-husband had ?shown no understanding whatsoever that her decision to transition to a woman has had an impact on anyone else, and particularly? his former partner, he ultimately ruled that the surgery addressed a ?genuine and deep-felt medical/psychological need?.

Calling it a ?hugely difficult and emotionally draining experience? for the transwoman, the judge concluded that the surgery was not carried out ?as a whim? and that it was ?reasonable? for the costs to be covered using joint funds. (Yahoo News)

Update news