The Provincial Court of Córdoba has ratified the ruling of the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 3 of Posadas and has recognized the right of a woman to continue receiving compensation of 300 euros per month for five years and three months (a total of 18,900 euros) from her ex-husband for his dedication during the marriage to household chores, which was established in the divorce agreement.
The ex-husband, as stated in ruling 1556/2025, had filed an appeal against the ruling of the aforementioned court, seeking to modify the measures agreed upon in the divorce agreement, made in September 2022. Specifically, he wanted to extinguish the compensatory pension set in favor of his ex-wife, suspend the alimony of his eldest son, and reduce alimony of minor children, adjusting it to what could be assumed and the needs of the minors.
You may be interested
Social Security denies a widow’s pension to a woman who decided to return to her husband after a separation, but who did not inform the court: the Supreme Court endorses it
Ken MacKenzie, 64, retired: “I retired in Portugal; it’s like living in a five-star hotel”
To do this, he alleged the dissolution of a business (a fruit and vegetable company) due to the crisis in the sector, this being its source of income. Furthermore, as he appeared as guarantor for the same, he explained that numerous debts fell on him, which, in his opinion, made it unsustainable for him to be able to comply with his obligation to pay alimony and compensatory pension. Likewise, he stated that the ex-wife’s economic situation had improved, since she had a stable job and enjoyed luxury goods.
Regarding the formal requirements of the appeal, he alleged an error in the evaluation of the evidence regarding the call log of the eldest son, as well as an error in the evaluation of the evidence regarding the economic situation of the company in December 2022, which led to its dissolution.
The Provincial Court of Córdoba confirms the financial compensation of the ex-wife and the alimony payments
The Provincial Court of Córdoba confirmed the ruling of the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 3 of Posadas, arguing that a substantial modification in the man’s economic capacity was not proven, nor the lack of relationship attributable to the eldest son necessary to cease his alimony.
Starting with alimony for the eldest son, the man requested its termination not due to lack of economic capacity, but due to lack of contact between father and son attributable to the latter. In this sense, the Court, based on the doctrine of the Supreme Court, established that in order to assess the cessation of alimony, it must be proven that the lack of relationship is, primarily and relevantly, attributable to the children.
However, it was not proven that the lack of relationship was the exclusive fault of the eldest son, nor did the father present any evidence to prove this. Therefore, his alimony could not be extinguished. Continuing with the reduction of alimony for minor children, which was based on economic capacity, the court noted that, although the company was dissolved, the ruling concluded that no documentation was presented to prove their economic capacity as a natural person or their bank accounts.
In this sense, they saw economic contradictions since, although the man stated that he was not working, he acknowledged to the Public Prosecutor’s Office that he had closed several operations, from which he could have collected around 5,000 euros. Therefore, they understood that he continued working but “without billing in his name.”
Returning to the appeal, the Court recalled that the modification of measures requires that the change be substantial, intended to be permanent, not predictable and not voluntary. Based on this, the man registered as a job seeker almost a year after filing the claim, which they consider “incompatible with the situation of absolute hardship.” Furthermore, the court expressed its doubts that he had completely separated himself from the business, being able to work in the sector through third parties, even if he did not do so under his own name.
Furthermore, the liquidation of Social Security suggests that the company was aware of the actions that were coming as early as 2022, the year in which the agreement was ratified. For all these reasons, they did not see as proven the substantial modification of the circumstances required to proceed with the reduction of the pension for the minor children.
Lastly, regarding the ex-wife’s compensatory pension, the regulatory agreement established the payment of 300 euros per month for 5 years and three months, calling it “compensatory pension” and “compensation” with automatic termination upon expiration of said period. The Court determined that this did not correspond to the compensatory pension of article 97 of the Civil Code, but rather with that of 1438 of the same, since it arises from the dedication of one of the spouses to work for the house during the marriage under the regime of separation of property.
Unlike the compensatory pension (article 97), which can be modified or extinguished due to future events that affect the economic capacity of the parties, the compensation of article 1438 refers to a “still snapshot” at the date of the dissolution of the marriage under that regime. Once set, the audience explained that it had to be attended to regardless of what happens in the future. Thus, since it is not subject to the compensatory pension regime of the article, its payment does not depend on the lower or no economic capacity of the man, so its extinction was not possible either.