Divorce Allowance: Commentary on Judgment Cass. civ., Ord. no. 18506 of 2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, no. 18506 of 2024, represents an important ruling on divorce allowance, delving into the issue of financial compensation between ex-spouses. The decision is based on a series of consolidated legal principles, which clarify how and when the allowance should be granted, taking into account the specific economic and asset circumstances of the parties.

Context of the Decision

In the specific case, the Court of Lodi had initially ordered a divorce allowance of 800 euros per month, which was later reduced to 600 euros by the Court of Milan, taking into account the asset and income evidence of the spouses. The Court of Appeal noted a significant imbalance between the economic positions of the two ex-spouses, emphasizing how the ex-wife, B.B., had contributed substantially to the family's assets, while the appellant, A.A., had a clearly more favourable economic situation.

The compensatory function of the divorce allowance presupposes that the economically weaker spouse has sacrificed work or professional growth opportunities to dedicate themselves to the family.

Legal Principles Underlying the Judgment

The Court of Cassation recalled the principles expressed by the United Sections (SU no. 18287/18), according to which the divorce allowance has a dual function: assistance and compensation. In particular, it must recognise the contribution made by the economically weaker ex-spouse to the formation of the family's assets. This approach implies that proof of professional sacrifice by the ex-spouse does not necessarily have to be motivated by affective choices, but can also stem from a sharing of family roles and responsibilities.

Criticisms Raised by the Appellant

A.A. appealed the Court of Appeal's decision, arguing that the ex-wife had not actually sacrificed professional opportunities. However, the Court held that the evidence presented, such as collaboration contracts with the Polytechnic University of Milan, demonstrated the contrary, highlighting how these professional choices had been limited by the need to care for the family.

• The appellant complained of a violation of procedural rules, arguing that the Court had misinterpreted the technical expert's report.
• Furthermore, he contested the ex-wife's alleged renunciation of more profitable work opportunities.
• Finally, he stressed the absence of an adequate examination of the requested witness testimonies.

Conclusions

The judgment of the Court of Cassation follows a clear line of case law, which recognises the importance of the contribution made by spouses during married life in determining the divorce allowance. It is essential for judges to carefully evaluate economic and asset evidence, as well as the role of each spouse in the family context, to ensure a fair and just decision. The ruling represents a further step towards adequate protection of the economic rights of ex-spouses, promoting greater fairness in separations and divorces.