Facts
The parties married in 1994 and have three children. Since July 2006, they have been living separately. The Presiding Judge obliged the husband to pay maintenance contributions from December 2006. The High Court partially reduced the child maintenance contributions. The wife appealed against the High Court's judgment. The Federal Court confirms the previous case law, according to which the maintenance debtor must be left with the full subsistence minimum in all categories of family law maintenance. A deficit sharing between the spouses and children is rejected, as this would lead to various problems in practice, especially in interaction with the welfare authorities and in the enforcement of maintenance contributions. The change of the established case law is not justified, as the difficulties in the practical implementation of a deficit sharing outweigh the reasons for a change in practice.Considerations
The Federal Court states that the harmonization of practice to the inviolability of the subsistence minimum of the maintenance debtor was justified by two arguments: on the one hand, the motivation to work of the maintenance debtor should be preserved, and on the other hand, a deficit sharing could lead to more social assistance recipients and thus to a greater burden on the welfare authorities.
However, these arguments are not entirely convincing. Furthermore, the principle of deficit sharing is in line with the material foundations of maintenance law, according to which the maintenance of the family is to be borne jointly. From a constitutional law perspective, a deficit sharing would also be justifiable.
Howe…