The reason that I asked is that she clearly was making a significant contribution to the IVA and should only have been doing so if in the IVA.
In answer to your question, therefore, as to whether your IP was right in looking for you to pay virtually all your disposable income in to the IVA, I have to say that he probably was because that is what the creditors expect.
I think that you probably found this when the original I&E was agreed for your proposal and 12 months on, the review is simply ensuring that arrangemnet continues.
As a general rule, at the time of annual reviews, I'll always try to cut the debtor a bit of slack and there are several ways of doing this without it being too obvious but overall an IP has to ensure that the principals of the IVA are observed.
Unfortunately, all of this may be academic anyway if, with your wife's difficulties, she may not be able to continue to work although there may be the possibilty to propose a variation but whether the creditors would accept it, might be marginal.
One final thing, and it's aimed at getting other posters to give their real experience , as opposed to my academic experience,I have my doubts that bankrupts during the time that they are subject to an IPA are likely to be dining out very often.
Whilst the amount of the IPA is more generous than the amount that you are required to contribute in to an IVA, I rather doubt that the difference will allow you to live a normal social life but probably makes the household budget just that much easier to acheive than the very tight constraints of an IVA
