The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a 61-year-old woman with an absolute permanent disability to maintain the collection of a compensatory pension of 850 euros per month, after her ex-husband tried to extinguish said obligation by alleging the cessation of his work activity. In this way, the High Court corrects (and revokes) the ruling of the Provincial Court of Palencia, which had left the woman without income some on the part of his ex-partner, but it introduces a crucial nuance with respect to the original ruling of the Court (it establishes a time limit linked to the legal retirement age of the debtor).
As explained in the ruling STS 5252/2025 (which can be consulted at this link to the Judiciary), the conflict dates back to the divorce by mutual agreement signed in 2011, where a pension of 1,000 euros was agreed. Now, the ex-husband asked that this compensatory pension be eliminated, since he had sold the license from your tobacconist and he no longer works. Thus, although the Court of First Instance maintained the pension, reducing it to 850 euros, the Provincial Court decided to remove it, leaving the woman with only her pension for permanent disability due to severe disability of around 1,300 euros.
Faced with this situation, the woman appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that her situation of need had not changed at all. She, 59 years old at the time of the trial and with absolute disability recognized since 2007, lacked any real possibility of returning to the labor market or improving her fortunes.
The Supreme Court rejects “immediate extinction” due to a voluntary decision of the debtor
The Supreme Court has been categorical in rejecting the criteria of the Provincial Court, describing the assessment of the ex-husband’s economic capacity as incorrect. The sentence details that the man’s decision to sell the tobacconist before the age of 65 “although understandable for reasons of health and age” was a voluntary act that generated an immediate financial benefit.
The Chamber explains that the Court ignored fundamental data (such as the nearly 140,000 euros of profit that the court itself estimated after the sale of the tobacconist’s license and stock). The court understands that it is not admissible to extinguish the pension based only on the man’s current monthly income “about 530 euros for the rental of a premises”, forgetting the liquid capital he obtained with the operation. Furthermore, the High Court recalls that the man’s obligation to pay maintenance for their common child was also extinguished, which freed up even more resources in his daily economy.
For this reason, the Supreme Court has decided to reverse the sentence and recover the payment obligation, protecting the woman from an abrupt extinction that did not take into account the true financial life of her ex-husband after the transfer of the business.
A time limit linked to actual retirement
Now, the Supreme Court has taken into account the biological and work reality of the ex-husband, partially agreeing with him regarding the duration of the measure. The High Body considers that maintaining the pension indefinitely (as agreed in 2011) is no longer sustainable, given that the person obliged to pay is approaching definitive retirement.
The ruling explains that, although the ex-husband now has capital to pay, that situation will change substantially when he turns 65. The court understands that on that date (November 2027) the man will depend on his retirement pension and the logic of compensation with the funds from the sale of the business will have been exhausted.
Thus, by weighing the interests of both, the Supreme Court has decided to set the final pension at 850 euros per month (the figure calculated by the first instance), but establishing a clear expiration date. In this way, this ruling balances the scales (it guarantees the support of the incapacitated woman during the transition to old age, but frees the ex-husband from a perpetual burden once he himself officially enters old age).