Sorry. Divorce Law is very complex so any assumptions are just that, it depends on what you can agree between yourselves, and failing that, what your solicitors agree on your behalf. This all boils down to the individual circumstances of your marriage.
Cog is right - a father will not be living in one room, whilst the wife swans about the mansion. However how you do divide the assets, consideration will be given to:
Yours and his "Financial Needs" going forwards. With four children, you may already live in a five-bedroom house. You may not. But their housing, and yours as a primary carer will be the first consideration. Whatever you have now, is likely to be retained by you until the children grow up. So any equity he claims in the house, may well have to sit there, until such a time that you can reasonable afford to sell it and buy a one/two bedroomed home, this is usually when the child reaches 18.
Also taken into consideration is "compensation" - so if you have scarified your career, for example, whilst he has accelerated his by virtue of becoming a SAHM, then this will be factored in. Compensation does not mean you get half of his income going forward at all, but again, it does explain why every divorce is unique.
If you have the children full time and have to pay for childcare in order to work full time, then he may have more disposable income be comparison. On the other hand, if he cannot raise enough to obtain a mortgage, then he will rent and more of his disposable income will be used up. So the law seeks to allocate 'fairness' given your individual situation.
Thirdly "sharing" together you had a way of life (and the longer you were married, the more it was your way of life). That means that when the marriage ends, both parties have to adjust to a new way of life, depending on what can be afforded.
So the assumption that it's just a 50/50 split of the assets and that's fair, is not Divorce Law at all. It's the principles above that explain why Heather Mills got 16million on her divorce after just a few years of marriage to a man who was estimated to be worth 444million. So nowhere near the 50/50 split, however, you may judge it was fair because she put up with Paul McCartney's warbling for a few years (thus the compensation aspect!). The media, if I remember rightly, seemed to think "she'd done very well out of her marriage". She didn't do that well really - litigants in person generally don't when faced with the skilled expertise of London's top barristers.
The law only seeks 'fairness', then any assumptions a first time divorcee has is likely to be media-led and incorrect. I think is the point I tactlessly was trying to make.