The Provincial Court of Navarra has rejected the appeal of a father who earned 2,500 euros and requested to reduce the alimony of 400 euros per month set for his youngest sonalleging that the mother was living with a new partner and received financial help from her eldest son. Justice has been clear and considers that the obligation to support the minor corresponds to the parents, not third parties, and the mother’s personal situation does not justify a reduction.
According to the ruling handed down on November 17, 2025, the man filed an appeal against the resolution of the Court of First Instance and Instruction No. 1 of Tafalla, which decreed the separation and adopted measures regarding their common son. A alimony of 400 euros paid by the father, who receives approximately 2,500 euros per month and lives with his sister. Exclusive custody was awarded to the mother, with an income of about 1,200 euros.
You may be interested
Justice agrees with Social Security and denies permanent disability to a chemical sector worker with muscle pain and “probable fibromyalgia”
Two retirees with a pension of 2,400 euros per month: “We don’t pay electricity, water or rent and we travel three or four times a year”
The father alleged that the mother shared a home with her new partner and her eldest son, both with their own income, and he considered that this circumstance should be taken into account to reduce his contribution.
Living with another partner does not reduce the father’s obligation to his child
The Provincial Court of Navarra fully confirmed the first instance ruling and dismissed the father’s appeal. The court recalled that, in accordance with article 146 of the Civil Code, maintenance must be established according to the financial resources of the parents and the needs of the minor, without this obligation being able to be passed on to the mother’s partner or relatives.
The Court considered that the amount set is proportionate taking into account the economic capacity of both parents, and stressed that “coexistence with a new partner cannot affect the father’s obligation towards his child.” Furthermore, he clarified that the distribution of family responsibilities cannot be confused with the new coexistence dynamics of each parent after separation.
Regarding the family home, the court also maintained the distribution at 50% of the mortgage payment, even though the father no longer lived there. He argued that the obligation to pay the mortgage is not based on the use of the home, but on the co-ownership of the property, and that the distribution can only be modified when the common assets are liquidated.
For all this, the father must continue paying the pension of 400 euros to his son. However, the sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.