I cannot quote on the fairness issue. Locally if the woman has no hope or potential of earning simular money to what the husband does.

The alimony persists until she remarries. Apeals by the male to courts usually bring greater levies. Obviously the courts do not want to see the apeals.

To have to support a woman say where there were no children involved and the relationship was of perhaps five years duration seems somehow wrong to me. The reverse of the situation is probably not claimed very often but does occur as well.

Different juristictions have different applications. For example if you have a business in newfoundland the wife is not allowed to profit from it if in fact you reside there. I know one local wealthy family that set up a business in newfounland to block major asset distribution on purpose some years ago. It was quite a shock to the wife when it all went down.

The guy pays shild support and alimony but the now ex wife was effectivly blocked from the buisiness asset area. .This is a strange law that is only in Newfoundland in Canada to the best of my knowledge.