Maintenance allowance: Supreme Court ruling on economic imbalance and career sacrifices

In Ordinance No. 2917 of February 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation has further defined the scope of the "compensatory-equalizing" function of divorce alimony. The ruling clarifies that the granting of financial support cannot be based on hypothetical projections or future pension losses; instead, it requires the verification of a current, actual economic imbalance between the former spouses resulting from proven professional sacrifices.

Case Overview and Legal Context

The case originated from a decision by the Rome Court of Appeal which, partially overturning a first-instance judgment, awarded an ex-wife a monthly divorce alimony of €200.00. Although the lower court had established that the applicant possessed adequate financial resources, the award was justified on the basis of alleged "contributory damage."

According to the appellate judges, the woman had interrupted her career for a brief period (1995-1999) to care for young children and, in the following decade, had engaged in informal employment (lavoro in nero). The court argued that these circumstances would lead to a future pension imbalance compared to her former husband. The appellant challenged this decision, contesting the lack of a real comparative assessment of incomes and the failure to specify the professional sacrifices actually made.

The Compensatory-Equalizing Function of Alimony

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, reiterating that divorce alimony is not a tool designed to guarantee the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. Its nature is composite: it serves a welfare purpose (assistenziale) and, more importantly, a compensatory-equalizing purpose (perequativo-compensativa).

This latter aspect presupposes that the economically weaker spouse sacrificed concrete opportunities for professional growth to dedicate themselves to the family. Such a choice, even if mutually agreed upon by the spouses, must have produced an economic-patrimonial imbalance that is causally linked to the contribution provided to the formation of the common assets or the assets of the other spouse.

Legal Principle: Rejecting Hypothetical Valuations

The core of the decision lies in the critique of the appellate judge's "hypothetical" reasoning. The Supreme Court highlighted a contradiction: while the lower court acknowledged the adequacy of the applicant's means, it nevertheless granted alimony based on a future projection of a pension gap.

The legal principle expressed in Ordinance No. 2917/2026 establishes that:

• The assessment of the inadequacy of the applicant's means and the objective impossibility of obtaining them constitutes the essential precondition for awarding alimony.
• The economic imbalance between the former spouses must be current and actual. It cannot be based on hypothetical projections which, while potentially justifying a future review of the alimony, are not sufficient to establish a right to the benefit today.
• The burden of proof regarding the sacrifice of "realistic professional and income opportunities" rests entirely with the applicant and cannot be replaced by generic statements regarding family support.

Operational Implications and the Burden of Proof

The ruling underscores a heightened standard of proof. It is no longer sufficient to demonstrate having cared for the family; the claimant must prove specifically which career opportunities were forfeited and how these losses have impacted their current financial standing.

Furthermore, "contributory damage" arising from informal employment cannot be automatically transferred to the former spouse in the form of divorce alimony—especially if such a condition is not directly attributable to choices necessitated by family requirements, but rather to independent professional conduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Rome Court of Appeal for a new examination based on these strict parameters of currency and causal link.