A family judge has criticised the annual amount a mother wanted in "child maintenance" payments to spend on bottles of wine averaging £50 a time.
The judge decided Veronica Antonio's claim for £10,555 per annum to entertain the parents of her child's friends when they visit and "some general entertaining" was too high.
But he ruled Ms Antonio should still be allowed "a significant figure for wine" under the maintenance arrangements she has with her son's multimillionaire father, Christopher Rokos.
"The child is aged seven and does not consume the wine," Mr Justice Holman observed in a judgment that has just been released.
He said of the mother: "In her statement, she showed that she was allowing an average of £50 per bottle for the wine.
"It seems to me that in the context of a claim under Schedule 1 to the Children Act, which must be for the maintenance of the child, I should not allow as high a figure as £10,500 per annum for wine, although I do, in my approach, still allow a significant figure for wine."
The judge was examining an application in family proceedings and deciding the appropriate level of interim periodical payments to meet the child's needs.
Mr Rokos disclosed to the court in November last year total net assets of about £660 million, with a net income of just under £4m per annum and homes not only in London but also New York, Marrakesh and Miami.
Describing Mr Rokos as "rich but not in the realms of the super rich by modern standards", the judge added: "There cannot be, and is not, in this case any suggestion that the father cannot without difficulty pay any amount that might conceivably be considered an appropriate level of maintenance for this seven-year-old child."
But the court had to avoid falling into any temptation or trap of augmenting an award "simply because the payer has great wealth".
The parents had signed a formal written agreement in June 2009, and the father's position was that he should not have to pay more than he had contractually agreed.
But there had been disagreement, and the mother's lawyers claimed he had made payments at a higher level until he slashed the payments in "a fit of pique".
The judge said the father's agreement to pay a large number of items contained in a schedule listed on Page C79 of a court bundle - including the cost of his son's nanny, his mother's housekeeper, the boy's activities and all educational expenses - would take care of a great deal of the expenditure.
However, an additional cash payment was necessary, and it was around this that both sides were "locked in conflict".
The judge said lawyers for the mother argued that he should restore, on an interim basis, cash payments of £144,000 per annum "additional to all the items of page C79".
The judge said he was not prepared to accept the full amount claimed by the mother, including the "Wine" bill.
He said: "Taking an overall view of this case, I have come to the conclusion that, strictly on an interim basis, as I stress and emphasise, and provided he makes all the payments described on page C79... the father must make cash payments to the mother for all her other expenditure at the rate of £8,000 per month."