We can only guess what really went on with their marriage and it's their own business but the reality is that their lives are partially made public and details of the court ruling were made public. The ruling seems to support what most people would like to, or do think of Mills. Here is some of what the judge said -
Mills gave 'inaccurate' evidence
- "The judge described Ms Mills in his ruling as having "a strong-willed and determined personality", and said she was also a "kindly person and devoted to her charitable causes"...."She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination," he stated.
- Sir Paul's evidence was described as "balanced". "He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest," Mr Justice Bennett said.
- The judge wrote that he gave Ms Mills "every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under". But he added: "I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid". "Overall she was a less than impressive witness," he said.
- "I have to say I cannot accept the wife's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999," said Mr Justice Bennett.
- And her claim to have had "very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit" were not supported by her tax returns, the ruling said.
- The judge added that her tax returns "disclose no charitable giving at all", despite Mills saying she gave "as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings ... direct to charities".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7302736.stm