Cited by

Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 674-75 (1976) (reversing alimony order as “paltry and penurious” given wife’s testimony regarding her gallbladder removal, other surgeries, and congenital kidney ailment); see also Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451 (1983) (affirming alimony award, over husband’s charge that it was excessive, where wife “testified

have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.” The intent of this statute is to permit parties to dissolve their marriage, while “minimizfing] the acrimony attending divorce proceedings.” Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 673 (1976).

We have previously held that “it is essential that the amount of alimony awarded be sufficient to cover the wife’s needs, within the limits of the husband’s ability to pay.” Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 675 (1976).

Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 675, 366 A.2d 479, 482 (1976) (quotation and citations omitted).

Even if the amendment is allowed, if the plaintiff does not prove fault on which divorce can be granted and the court grants a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, fault would not be considered on the questions of property division or alimony.

A supported former spouse’s needs are not limited to the barest necessities.

.” We have stated that “[i]t is essential that the amount of alimony awarded be sufficient to cover the wife’s needs, within the limits of the husband’s ability to pay.” Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 675, 366 A.2d 479, 482 (1976).

Moreover, upon review of the record in this case, we find no abuse of discretion by the master in recommending that the family home be sold and that the equity be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant.

In addition, the master’s decision granting the divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences was consistent with the intent of RSA 458:7-a (Supp. 1979) to “minimize the acrimony attending divorce proceedings.” Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 673, 366 A.2d 479, 481 (1976) (quoting Desrochers v. Desrochers, 115 N.H. 591, 594, 347 A.2d 150, 153 (1975)).

It is also true that the intent of the irreconcilable differences statute, RSA 458:7-a, was to “minimize the acrimony attending divorce proceedings” and that once irreconcilable differences have been pled and established, the introduction of fault evidence in respect to alimony could defeat that intent.

The ruling was based on too expansive a reading of Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 366 A.2d 479 (1976).

Considering the property settlement in its entirety, we do not think that the master erred in dividing the real estate as he did.

The Court (Cann, J.) transferred the question of the reasonableness of the award which had been approved by Douglas, J. *999 The plaintiff has a serious medical history and because of this financial burden and exposure, we hold the award for support to be unreasonable.

In addition to the needs and current financial status of the parties, the circumstances to be considered include also the standard of living enjoyed by plaintiff at the time of the divorce, Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 675, 366 A.2d 479, 482 (1976); Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974), as well as the prior alimony orders in the amounts of $108 and $75 per month.