What is the effect of a Master's decision not to grant interim maintenance to a plaintiff?

In Myers v. Myers, to which I referred earlier, Melnick J. said this about the decision of the master whose order was under appeal, at paragraphs 10 and 11: 10. She appears to have focused solely on the principle referred to in Carr that a criterion (not the only criterion I hasten to add) to be taken into account in fixing interim maintenance is “the presumptive claim to equal standard of living subject, of course, to equally sharing the consequences of the dissolution of the marriage” (p. 339). 11. In focussing on this “third criterion” to the apparent exclusion of the traditional criteria of “need” and “ability to pay” the Master was clearly wrong.