Women banking on a short marriage with big bucks on divorce should take note.

If you divorced a wealthy spouse 25 years ago you would likely be far richer than if you end up in court today.

For Britain is slowly losing its status as the divorce capital of the world, with courts now handing out less money to ex-partners.

In some cases the wife is the wealthier partner, but in the vast majority it is still the husband who is better off.

Back in 2000, wives were safe in the knowledge that bumper divorce settlements would include a share of the capital amassed during their marriage, and more often maintenance until they remarried or their ex-husband retired or died.

The law recognised the crucial role that wives play in bringing up children. As a result they were given an equal right to money made by their husband and the equality of sharing was born.

It was only about ten years ago the law started to shift in another direction, as judges interpreted legislation with a fresh perspective. To many a husband's delight, in came the concept of a wife's ability to work and contribute towards her needs after divorce.

Now the brakes are being firmly applied to maintenance payments, which are no longer seen as for life but are instead awarded for a limited period.

As a divorce lawyer I have worked on thousands of cases over 40 years, and I can see how disappointing this shift in thinking has been for those wives married to wealthy men for short periods. They can no longer expect to walk away richer than before the marriage.

Courts now work towards what is known as a clean break, where each party is expected to stand on their own financial feet after divorce. No longer can a wife automatically expect a share in any bonuses or wealth built up after the divorce – she is regarded as not having contributed to this post-separation wealth.

Settlements are now based upon needs. These are interpreted as a home to live in and sufficient income to meet your expenditure to allow you to be independent and, where appropriate, a share of your husband's pension.

Gradually, joint lives orders – payments which continue until one half of the former couple dies – have begun to fade away in favour of trying to work out (and pay off up front) a wife's maintenance claims, based on her actual needs or for a set term, such as two, five or ten years.

Of course, those women married to seriously wealthy men for 20 years or more can expect to receive long periods of maintenance and, in even rarer cases, for joint lives with a half share of all the assets including pensions. With marriages getting shorter and shorter (the average length in the UK is 12.9 years) these settlements are becoming rarer still.

In one case, a wife – who we'll call Natasha – had been married for only four years, did not work and the couple did not have children. She enjoyed a very luxurious jet-setting lifestyle. Even so, she became bored of her elderly super-rich husband and commenced divorce proceedings, expecting a very large payout. It did not happen.

The court told Natasha that she should sell her vast collection of designer jewellery and handbags that her husband had bought for her and contribute towards her independence. Maintenance claims were cut after two years.

In another case, a woman we'll call Natalie totally misconstrued the meaning of 'reasonable needs'. Her list went on for seven pages. She claimed that she needed £3,000 a month for food for herself and two children, £1,000 a month for cinema and theatre tickets, £20,000 per annum for holidays and £50,000 for clothes. She claimed the cost of her clothes were 'an investment' to assist her in searching for a new husband.

She also wished for £400 a month for fresh-cut flowers in the hallway of her mansion. She was somewhat bemused when the judge asked if she'd ever 'considered purchasing dried flowers as an alternative'. As to the suggestion of working, Natalie turned a rather pale shade of green.

'What can you do – apart from shop?' the barrister for the husband sarcastically asked in court. 'Yet, is it not the case that you trained and qualified as an accountant? Is it possible that with a few months update you could earn again?'

'No! I haven't worked for five years!' exclaimed Natalie. 'I'm 48 and there is no way I would want to work again.'

Natalie was shocked when evidence was produced of her potential earning capacity by her husband's legal team and the court imputed the same to her.

'But I don't want to work...' she retorted. The judge, a woman in her 60s, stated otherwise, in the clearest terms: 'Madam, these days we all have to work into our 70s, and you are no exception.

'Maintenance is not a meal ticket for life and your purported needs are excessive. Even if they were pared down to a realistic level, you can meet at least half from your work and own resources.'

She received maintenance for five years – until their youngest child finished university.

In some cases – where there is enough capital available – the claims can be capitalised. In other words, calculations are made to work out a sum that will meet an ex-partner's maintenance needs, which decreases over time to zero.

What is factored into these equations are the wife's life expectancy, state of health, investment returns and inflation. For example, if a wife is aged 50 and her needs are £50,000 a year, she may receive £970,000 to capitalise out all her claims. If a wife is 74 and she needs £40,000, a capital sum may be £362,000.

And spouses who demand their lifestyles be maintained will not be accepted by the courts any more. If the assets within a marriage will no longer stretch to an ex-wife's demands then she will be asked to contribute to her own future.

And my advice? Always caveat emptor – buyer beware – for both husbands and wives.