Couples who live separately so they get additional financial support

[slimline]

A couple I know got married over a year ago, yet they still live separately. She has two children from a previous relationship and lives in a 3 bed house. He lives in a 2 bed house and has no children. I mention the size of their homes because it’s clear that there is ample space for the entire family to live under one roof. I can’t think of any other reason for their separate living arrangements (considering they have made a commitment to each other through marriage) aside from financial security, as her eldest child has SEN and she doesn’t work. He is working, which I assume could complicate things if he were to move in. Yes, I understand it’s legal, but I can’t help but think they’re taking advantage of the system in some way. This isn't the first time I've heard of couples or families living apart in order to increase their income. I’m ready to be accused of benefit bashing or called all the names under the sun. Don’t care sorry!

It's not just about beating the benefits system if that is what is going on, it's also that there is a property that could be someone else's home. You may think I'm being a bit petty here but my last job showed me just how many people are choosing this lifestyle.

I meant investigating was more prolific because the system was clunky.
Now it’s one claim per household for everything, it’s easier to assess if people are truly paying for two separate households.

Are husbands legally expected to financially support wives? I know they are with children hence CMS. How much support are they legally obligated to provide?

But if you have never lived together like the OP?

And why only husbands supporting wives? How about wives supporting husbands?

To the detriment of your child?

The couple have chosen to marry, but are trying to evade the reality of what that commitment financially involves and yes, it works exactly the same way for wives supporting their husbands. The family unit is considered as two people joined together and responsible for each other.

i would say they’re probably doing it for the kids as opposed to the money

Yes, they probably are, but unfortunately, they can't have the legal protections and benefits of marriage, without taking on the responsibilities. The tax payer should not be funding it.

Yeah but actually they can.
These are blended families. What are the benefits of marriage if they don’t live together? It works differently with other people’s children in the mix. Marriage does not include adoption does it.
With regards to the tax payer marriage makes no difference. It doesn’t cost any more or less that people have a marriage certificate in these circumstances.

Well, there are clear financial benefits to both parties if the other dies, since they inherit their wealth, pension contributions and personal possessions. In this case, the husband is able to finance a home for himself, he should be paying for his wife's home because she is now married to him and the state is not liable to support her. They should be being looked at as joint claimants because they are legally united and now responsible for each other. The state is still paying about £900 a month to support the children and that does not include the possible parental contribution from their other parent. The finances for housing etc should be combined and the state should not be paying them.

Marrying her does not make him responsible, legally or otherwise for her children. As is the majorty view on here for any stepmother who is bring asked to contribute to her step kids that she actually lives with. Apparently they are nothing to do with her. Why is this different?

It is different due to the fact the state is supporting them and the rules around this. The marriage makes the husband responsible for her and her for him if the situation were reversed. If they are claiming benefits, it is a one household claim because their finances on marriage become joint. Her input to the family pot is the approximately £900.00 a month she receives for the children's DLA, Carers allowance and Child benefit, plus any maintenance contribution for them. That may not be enough money, but in getting married and claiming from the state they have made that choice. If they didn't marry, it would not be an issue.

They can though because the law says so. If you live together and are in a relationship, it doesn't matter if you are married. If you are married but don't live together, the law says it is fine.

Where does it say in law in 2026 in the UK that marriage makes one adult legally responsible for another and their child? There are loads of couples on here who keep their finances separate and the higher earner does not look after the other one. If they are living together, then the state deems them.one household. Marriage doesn't come into it. You may think it SHOULD but as far as I know in law it doesn't.

If you are living apart for work or care considerations, but are not legally separated, you are considered a couple if either party is claiming Universal Credit.

Im not at all familiar with the rules so I cant say with certainty that you're correct or not but this couple have NEVER lived together. Consistently we see on here a belief that a step.parent should not be financially on the hook for a step child.

To have a joint claim, you MUST be living in the same household. This is stated very clearly on the Gov website.

No, you are only considered to be a couple and needing a joint claim if you are living together in the same household.

That is not their problem.
Build more housing. Forcing people to live together is not the solution and not something that would happen anyway. Couples live apart for lots of different reasons. There is a thread running at the moment about people in relationships who do not want to live with each other. Money does not really come into it, as it always costs more to run two separate homes anyway.

Thread explaining why some couples prefer to live apart
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5516790-couples-who-cant-live-together?page=2&reply=151699013

It does cost more money and it is entirely up to people to choose how they want to live, but as OP has said, the issue is how fair it is to expect the state to pay for a preference or need when the parties are married. This couple are married so they should not be choosing to maintain two households in a married state when their joint ability to do so is dependent on top up finance from the tax payer.

Is there a law somewhere that says married people have to live together?
Because if there is not, then they are doing nothing wrong.

their finances on marriage become joint

No. This is not true. No one’s finances whilst you alive are joint unless you make them so.
Yes when you are dead it gives the legal married partner some rights but then the state wouldn’t be paying the deceased.

No, their ability to.maintain their separate households is as it ever was. He works ft, she works pt because she has caring responsibilities for a child that is not his. Them marrying does not make any difference. They are not 'joint' by law or obligation in terms of financial support, only in terms of next of kin amd inheritance.