Alternatively, even if the maher created a demand obligation, counsel for the husband submitted that the payment to the
wife under the maher should not be excluded from the NFP calculation. He pointed out that while the maher in Khanis stated
[at para. 9] that it “shall be in addition and without prejudice to
and not in substitution of all my obligations provided for by the
laws of the land”, there was no such language in this case. Without an equivalent provision, he submitted that there was no
basis to exclude the maher payment from NFP.
 In addition, counsel for the husband argued the wife’s
Form 13B Financial Statement erroneously listed the maher
payment as both the husband’s existing debt at the date of marriage and an excluded asset. He submitted this error double-counted the maher payment to the husband’s detriment by
inflating his NFP in the financial statement.
D. The Wife’s Argument
 Counsel for the wife submitted that the trial judge’s
treatment of the maher payment is entitled to deference. She
submitted that this court could not interfere with the trial
judgment absent a palpable and overriding error.
 Counsel for the wife contended the trial judge’s construction of the maher obligation as a promissory note was reasonable
because the two clauses of the maher were independent. Each of
the two clauses had separate sets of signatures. She argued the
first clause created the payment obligation and the second
clause created a “side binding” agreement by which the husband
granted the wife a power of attorney to seek a divorce if he
breached one of the listed behavioural requirements.
 Counsel for the wife submitted that the result in the
Khanis case did not depend on the express term in its maher that
provided the payment was in addition to the husband’s other legal
obligations. She asserted the maher payment would have been
excluded from NFP in that case even without that clause. She
said the wife had testified that the maher was akin to a dowry
and mahers have been treated “by the courts [as] more of a
dowry”. She submitted it was for that reason “that the courts have
accepted it as a contract separate and apart from equalization”.
 Finally, counsel for the wife argued that the maher
payment would have to be made even if the maher payment
were included in the wife’s NFP, irrespective of the equalization calculation.
 Therefore, counsel for the wife submitted the trial judge
was correct in excluding the maher payment from the NFP