the page dell'ADUC http://www.aduc.it/articolo/matrimonio+eterno+dura+legge+dell+assegno+divorzile_17149.php
Last 22 January, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in which, according to the ruled in the past, the right endorses maintenance allowance divorzile former spouse who in the meantime and 'remade a life that has a relationship of cohabitation and a child conceived in that context.
The court case in question is fundamentally flawed nature of the case which prevented the lower courts to assess fully all aspects of the story.
The story in short, 'this. He is also a wealthy doctor with activity 'from which an artist draws a substantial royalty income, two children from a previous marriage. Also a doctor, but 'of modest economic conditions, no children. They meet and marry. The marriage lasts about two and a half years, split up, and eventually divorced, no children. In the course of the proceedings divorce her change city ', he met another man with whom to live together, becomes a mother. Her ex-husband does not know any of this and can not 'do this so the courts if not later, and the trial is concluded, therefore, a check against him divorzile approximately € 1000.00 in favor of women.
Only then will you discover all the new life of the former spouse. It turns out that changed residence, bought a holiday home and one for their parents, and in fact is' really a life remade. Then asked the court, because of this new and changing environment and also because of the minimum duration of marriage, which remove the obligation to maintain his former spouse. Nothing gets only a reduction of the same. Why '?
Why ',-says the Court of Appeal first, and then-Supreme Court can not be assessed the facts at the time of the divorce process already' could be relied on in court (note the birth of the woman's son and cohabitation with a new partner), although unknown to her husband. Unfortunately it 'just so'. In the jargon it is said that judged the covers and raised the deductible, ie: when it 's an open process on a topic you have to say everything you know or you could / should know, otherwise you will be able to' more ' return to it.
short a tragedy to some former spouses, despite the forced events and situations to pay an annuity for a marriage that lasted only a few months maybe.
The Supreme Court has clarified the fact that merge concepts Continuing 'marriage, or rather the eternity': to what new and subsequent marriage do us part.
1. A subsequent cohabitation, although full and lasting, even with children, not 'final' as a marriage that lasted two and a half years and without children. Only a new marriage would undermine the entitlement to maintenance.
2. Although the new born children are living what 'does not make it any less precarious socio-economic situation that is created with the marriage. Why
'such apparent irrationality of the Court? It 's not obvious and evident in their eyes that as long as the former spouse will be able to' enjoy the income arising from the former marriage, will not have 'no interest to contract a new one?
assume that the real reasons that led to the decision lies elsewhere. That the more 'that the theory, have prevailed factually: equalize standards of living of former spouses. Her ex-husband, in fact, as stated in above, and 'much' of her wealthy ex-wife. This 'has led the courts, perhaps, to create a need for "distribution" of income between former spouses, beyond the' purely for reasons of marriage. Frankly, in fact, you can not deal with such a vision 'punitive marriage and blackmail, deaf to the changes and developments in the individual events of life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment