Facts
The husband (defendant) and the wife (plaintiff) married in 1995 and have two children. The wife was employed full-time during the marriage, while the husband was either not employed or only worked for a limited time. After the separation in 2002, the wife initiated divorce proceedings in 2004. The cantonal instances refused the division of the wife's occupational pension termination benefits of CHF 50,710.- and the husband's of CHF 3,025.-, as this would fundamentally violate the sense of justice due to the wife's double burden.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the husband's appeal. It states that the division of the termination benefits according to Art. 122 CC must generally take place. A refusal of the division is only possible if it would be manifestly inequitable due to the property settlement or the financial circumstances after the divorce (Art. 123 para. 2 CC) or if the division would violate the prohibition of abuse of rights (Art. 2 para. 2 CC) in the specific individual case.
In the present case, the statutory ground for refusal of manifest inequity is not given, as it is not about the financial circumstances after the divorce. Nor is…