A judge forces a man to pay 80,000 euros to his ex-wife for the care of their children

he Court of First Instance and Instruction number 3 of Vélez-Málaga has recognized the right of a woman to be compensated by her ex-husband with the amount of 79,200 euros as compensation for “care of the home, children and husband” while He has been able to work “uninterrupted and constantly” during the marriage.

The ruling, issued in the divorce process, establishes other measures, such as parental authority over the couple’s three children, custody, visitation, alimony and the family home, which was also the subject of controversy. . The judicial resolution is not yet final.

The couple married in May 2009 and have three children between the ages of 4 and 11. In October 2022, the woman, who has been represented in the case by lawyer Marina Fernández, filed for divorce in the Veleño court and requested a series of definitive measures.

The woman requested that parental authority over the children be exercised jointly, although granting her custody, with a broad visitation regime for the father, as well as alimony of 1,650 euros per month (550 per child). .

Likewise, she requested that she be assigned the use of a chalet in Vélez-Málaga considering that it constituted the family home and a compensatory pension for her of 1,500 euros per month for life, in addition to compensation of 191,000 euros for the care of the home. and their children together for more than a decade.

The ex-husband only agreed to jointly exercise parental authority and grant custody to the mother with a visitation regime. The man indicated another home as his family home, specifically an attic in the center of Vélez, and objected to the amount of alimony and to compensating or indemnifying his ex-wife.

After listening to the parties, the judge decided to attribute to the mother and the minors the use of the attic indicated by the father, considering it proven that it was the last family home. Regarding alimony, it was set at a total of 1,200 euros (400 per child) in view of the economic situation of the father, “who has an important business activity”, and taking into account that the mother is currently not working for health reasons.

The judge, on the other hand, refuses to grant a pension to the mother, considering that “it cannot be considered compensation” nor perpetuate the creditor’s way of life (“the idea that since she was a housewife she has the right to continue being a housewife for life today”). “It is not socially acceptable”) nor does it tend to equalize the assets of the members of the couple that breaks up.

“The compensatory pension has a rebalancing purpose” in the face of an “economic imbalance caused by separation or divorce,” the ruling emphasizes. “But without forgetting that the breakdown of a marriage will normally cause a loss of standard of living for both spouses, since it is usual for many ordinary expenses to increase.”

In this sense, the judge refers to article 1438 of the Civil Code, which does seem intended to correct “in an equitable manner” the possible imbalances “for the spouse lacking work activity who has focused his dedication on the care of the children and the family home.

“Thus,” the ruling states, “the marriage was celebrated in 2009, they have had three children and the marital economic regime is that of separation of assets.” […] From the documentary provided, it is proven that the plaintiff did not start working as an employee until 2021, so it is understood that until that date she has dedicated herself to taking care of the home, children and husband while he has been able to work uninterrupted.”

For all of the above, “and in view of the evidence carried out, taking into account the date of marriage, the date of cessation of cohabitation, as well as the accredited income of each of the spouses, and the plaintiff’s dedication to the home “, the judge considers that her ex-husband must compensate her with 79,200 euros for the period that “she did not work outside the home.”

It so happens that the Veleño court that handed down the sentence is the same one – although the judge who signed it is different – that in February of this year awarded 204,624.86 euros to another woman as compensation for work at home and in the family care carried out during marriage. In that case, the judge considered that she was deprived of any career path due to that dedication while he “increased his assets” by being married under a regime of separation of assets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *