Divorce Alimony and Cohabitation: The Recent Ruling of the Supreme Court

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation (no. 27043/2024) provides important insights regarding divorce alimony and its revocation in the presence of a new cohabitation. The ruling, examining the case of A.A. and B.B., clarifies how the stability of a spouse's new romantic relationship can influence the right to maintenance, highlighting the importance of evidence in assessing post-divorce living conditions.

The Case Under Review

The Court of Velletri initially accepted A.A.'s request for the revocation of the divorce alimony of 1,000 euros in favor of B.B., considering that the latter had established a more uxorio relationship with another partner. However, the Court of Appeal in Rome partially modified this decision, reducing the alimony to 500 euros. A.A. then appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the assessments of the Court of Appeal.

Legal Principles and Evidence Assessment

The Court of Cassation reiterated that, for the revocation of divorce alimony, the evidence of a new cohabitation must be rigorous and demonstrate the existence of a shared life plan. In particular, the Court emphasized that:

• Cohabitation is not an essential requirement for considering a relationship as a de facto family.
• It is necessary to evaluate all the signs of the relationship globally, not limiting oneself to the mere absence of cohabitation.
• The new life plan must be demonstrated through concrete evidence of mutual moral and material support.

Cohabitation has an evidentiary significance, but its absence is not decisive in denying the right to divorce alimony.

In this specific case, the Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the evidentiary elements, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the stability of B.B.'s new relationship and that shared expenses and trips were not indicative of a true common life.

Conclusions

This ruling represents an important reference point for judges and lawyers working in the field of family law. It clarifies that the assessment of evidence must be comprehensive and not atomistic, and that mere cohabitation is not sufficient to determine the revocation of divorce alimony. Spouses must demonstrate the existence of a new shared life plan to legitimize the request for modification of post-divorce economic agreements. In conclusion, the ruling of the Supreme Court not only guides future judicial decisions but also offers insights for broader reflection on the concept of family and the rights of spouses during separation and divorce.