Add NewsWork in 
The Provincial Civil Court of Madrid has ruled in favor of a 61-year-old woman to continue collecting a compensatory pension for life that will reach 280,000 euros per year, after having abandoned her career to dedicate herself exclusively to caring for her seven children and supporting her husband’s business career. In this way, the court rejects the bulk of the ex-husband’s appeal, which sought to suppress or drastically reduce this financial benefit signed in the 2015 divorce agreement.
According to ruling 24/2026, the couple divorced by mutual agreement more than ten years ago. During their cohabitation, the wife had to stop working as a translator freelance to “devote themselves to the education of the 7 children of the couple.” This allowed the husband to advance his own career, becoming the owner of a “multinational conglomerate of companies.”
Social Security refuses to process total permanent disability for those who are not discharged or in a similar situation at the time of the illness.
The Government rules out eliminating the penalty for those who retire early with 40 years of contributions because it would cost them 3,358 million euros
Despite having freely agreed on compensation in 2015, the ex-husband now decided to go to court requesting a modification of measures, arguing that the woman had enriched herself with the liquidation of assets (receiving millionaire sums and properties) and that the translation market was “on the rise”, so at her age she could return to the world of work without problems.
The Court calls the pact unchangeable and recalls its “derisory” retirement rights
The court was clear and rejected the husband’s idea of putting an expiration date on the amount, which was agreed to rise to 280,000 euros per year after the tenth anniversary of the divorce. The ruling explains that the ex-husband freely, consciously and voluntarily signed the agreement ten years ago, then recognizing the “very weak possibilities” of his ex-wife to find a job after so many years of inactivity taking care of the extensive family offspring.
The Chamber details that establishing an extinction now would go against the legal principle that agreements are to be fulfilled (“pacta sunt servanda”) and would go against the plaintiff’s own acts. In this case, the court emphasizes that the agreement itself admitted that the breakup entailed “a significant disparity in income and assets,” and recalls that dedication to the home meant that for the wife “her retirement rights are, in fact, ridiculous.” Therefore, the lifetime pension is not an undeserved privilege, but rather compensation for a structural and definitive imbalance.
The plaintiff attempted to justify the reduction of his obligations by alleging that he had a new child from a subsequent relationship and that his income had been reduced by international instability, specifically the war in Ukraine. However, the magistrates dismiss the argument, pointing out that the businessman has not provided any rigorous evidence that there is a permanent deterioration in his assets.
Likewise, the ruling recalls that the money and the chalet that the woman obtained from the liquidation of the property are not a “payment” from the husband, but rather her right to half of the marital assets, and that this occurred before the divorce was signed, so it was already taken into account when setting the pension.
End of alimony for a 25-year-old daughter
Now, the court has partially agreed with the father on a single point regarding family responsibilities. The Court has agreed to extinguish the alimony that the man paid in favor of one of his oldest daughters, 25 years old.
The resolution details that, having already completed a quarter of a century, “insertion into the labor market is in no way rejected,” to which is added the fact that the mother could not prove in court that the young woman was undergoing any type of academic training.