The Supreme Court has recognized the right of a 61-year-old woman to collect a compensatory lifetime pension of 1,400 euros per month, which she dedicated her last 24 years to caring for her two children and supporting her ex-husband’s career. Now, the High Court corrects the ruling of the Provincial Court, which had set a pension of 2,000 euros per month, but it does make it clear that the pension must be for life, since at 61 years of age it is almost impossible not only to find a job, but also to be able to access the contributory retirement pension.
As detailed in the ruling STS 5244/2025 (available at this link from the Judiciary) the couple was married for 33 years and, for much of the marriage, had to leave her job as an administrative assistant to focus exclusively on the home, while the husband continued to work.
After the de facto separation in 2014, the now ex-husband continued to send regular transfers of between 4,000 and 6,000 euros per month for family support, thus maintaining full economic dependence. Even so, the couple went to court because they could not reach a mutual agreement.
The court of first instance initially established a pension of 1,000 euros per month, but only limited it to one year. For this reason, the woman decided to go to the Provincial Court, which raised the pension to 2,000 euros indefinitely, that is, for life. Now, not being satisfied, the ex-husband appealed this latest decision to the Supreme Court with the aim of cutting both the amount and duration of the aid.
The Supreme Court calls the requirement to find a job futurism
The Supreme Court rejected the ex-husband’s appeal to set an expiration date on the compensatory pension. The magistrates explained that requiring a 61-year-old woman who has been out of the labor market for 24 years to find a stable job is something “really complicated.” Requiring a time limit requires a high degree of probability that the person will overcome the economic imbalance on their own in the future. For this reason, the court warns that assuming a successful labor reintegration in this specific case would be equivalent to engaging in “futurism or mere fortune-telling.”
The judicial resolution emphasizes that the woman’s exclusive dedication to her family “cut off her access to the world of work.” Having contributed only ten years to Social Security, he was left without the possibility of reaching the fifteen minimum years required to obtain his own contributory retirement pension. For this reason, the Supreme Court consolidates the indefinite pension to protect it financially against precariousness during the rest of its life.
The pension was reduced to 1,400 euros
What the Supreme Court did accept is to reduce the monthly amount of the benefit. The judges concluded that the previous ruling did not adequately assess the positive economic impact that the imminent liquidation of the community property will have. The couple owns a home free of charge and expertly valued at 390,500 euros. The sale of this property will provide the ex-wife with an approximate capital of 195,250 euros.
The Supreme Court explains that this injection of liquidity will allow the beneficiary to acquire a smaller house and reduce her household consumption expenses. By having one’s own assets as a result of joint ownership, the strict need for financial compensation is justified. For this reason, the High Court lowers the figure dictated by the Provincial Court and establishes a firm quota of 1,400 euros per month with no time limit.