A 63-year-old former air hostess has won a £14.5m London mansion from her 'immensely wealthy' 90-year-old Saudi Arabian ex-husband following a legal battle based on a Victorian law. The property, in north west London, which has 'superb views' over a London park, was one of five properties which the successful property developer bought during the couple's 14-year marriage. The couple's main marital home had been a £26m 'palatial residence' in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for which 40 members of staff were employed to keep it ticking over. A 63-year-old former air hostess has won a £14.5m London mansion from her 'immensely wealthy' 90-year-old Saudi Arabian ex-husband following a legal battle at the High Court (pictured) But, after their divorce, the woman - who did not have any financial input into the properties - moved into the townhouse, claiming her right to live there as one of their matrimonial homes. Despite her husband's attempts to evict her from the home, and force the sale of the heavily-mortgaged property, the wife has now been allowed to keep it as part of a complex legal settlement. The 'opulent' maisonette - which was originally three flats converted into one large home - was at one point worth £22m, but is now worth a 'disappointing' £14.5m, the court heard. The husband, who is said to be worth £600m and  blows up to £10m per year, was also made to give his wife their 'holiday' property in Cannes, which is worth 17m Euros. The judgment, made at the high court, was based on the woman's claim to a right to marital property under the 1882 Married Women’s Property Act. The judge ruled that she should be awarded around £10m on a 'needs light' basis. That was based on £3.5m for London housing, £2.25 million for a replacement holiday home and a further £500,000 to cover the outgoings on both properties. The court heard that both homes had significant mortgages, meaning they would have respective equities of £3.5m and £5.2m if they are sold. But the judge refused to grant the woman the £205,014 she was seeking annually to spend on jewellery, handbags and cars. The woman had claimed she needed £566,045 per year for her £75,000 wardrobe, as well as £25,000 to spend on jewellery. She also needed £25,000 for shoes and another £25,000 for handbags and accessories, she claimed. The couple married in the Central London Mosque (pictured) in 1979 when the man, a property developer, was in his mid-50s and the woman was in her late 20s. They divorced twice, once in 2002 and once in 2013 . The judge recognised that the woman's standard of living had been  'lavish and exceptional' during the marriage but said that it was 'not reasonable' to expect that to continue. He added: 'If the wife exceeds this figure, she will have only herself to blame.' The judge also pointed out that, had it been an entirely English case, the woman would have been entitled to £44million - the figure she originally sought - out of total £287.5million in assets. He said that even though she was 'clearly not a lady of business', she was the homemaker and mother, which made her contribution to the marriage equal to her husband. 'The authorities make it clear that she is not to be discriminated against for the way in which the parties organised their respective roles,' he said. The woman, from Lebanon, took the legal action against the businessman at the High Court in London. Had the same case been heard in Saudi Arabia, the woman would have been entitled to all but nothing. The couple married at the Central London Mosque in 1979 when the man was in his mid 50s and the woman was in her late 20s. They divorced in 1999, before remarrying in 2002. They then separated again in 2013, before divorcing in Saudi Arabia. The court heard that the main marital home had been in Saudi Arabia, where her rights would have been very different. But she was allowed to bring the case in London because the family had spent most summers during their marriage in the capital to escape the 'intolerable' Saudi Arabian heat, making it one of their matrimonial homes. Their children had also gone to nursery here during the holidays and the woman had lived here for at least one year when the case was brought. The court heard the husband owned properties in Paris, which sold for 15million Euros in 2013, and Beirut, which sold for $15.5m. His wife had kept the profit from the Paris flat, he said. Details of the case emerged in a ruling by Mr Justice Moor following a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in November. The row broke out when the pair were reunited in 2002, with the wife alleging that her husband had promised to transfer her some of his properties. The court heard that the husband, said to be a member of several London clubs, had indeed transferred different properties to other members of his family, including his wife. But the judge rejected the claim that he would have promised to transfer his wife any properties for any other reason than tax, insisting he was still the 'beneficial owner' of the property. He said: 'It is inherently improbable. He is a Saudi businessman with great stature. I cannot conceive that he would willingly part with all his residential property. Why should he? He had no intention of losing control of his various residential properties.' The judge also found that the wife had 'embellished and altered her recollection to suit her case'. The Married Women's Property Act 1882 was an act that significantly altered English law regarding the property rights of married women. Among the laws it introduced, it allowed married women to own and control property in their own right. It came following an 1836 Caroline Norton court case which highlighted the injustice of English property laws, and generated enough support that eventually resulted in the Married Women’s Property Act. Many of the elements have since been superseded by subsequent family law statutes.
House in London was one of five properties the man - worth £600m - owned .
Their main home was £26m 'palatial' mansion in Jeddah, which had 40 staff .
Wife now given homes in London and Cannes as part of legal settlement .
But judge refused to give woman the £205,000 she wanted to spend on jewellery, handbags and cars .