Facts
The case concerns an artist who failed to fulfill his maintenance obligations towards his divorced wife and children. The lower court assumed that although the artist did not earn enough with his artistic activity, he would have been obliged to take up a position in addition to his artistic activity that would have secured him a sufficient income to fulfill his maintenance obligations.
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed this view. A person obliged to pay maintenance must engage in paid employment to the extent that he can fulfill his maintenance obligations. If necessary, he must even change his profession, although this obligation is limited by the principle of reasonableness.
The artist cannot rely solely on his freedom of occupation if this conflicts with the fulfillment of his family law obligations. The obligation to provide for the divorced wife and children takes precedence in this case over the artist's freedom of occupation.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the artist obviously did not earn a sufficient income from his artistic activity to fulfill his maintenance obligations. Therefore, he cannot invoke his freedom to choose and practice his profession.
The obligation to provide for the divorced wife and children in an appropriate manner takes precedence in this case over the artist's freedom of occupation. This applies in particular if the payment of the maintenance contributions could already be secured…