Facts
By a judgment of 16 December 1964, the Matrimonial Court of the District of Neuchâtel pronounced the judicial separation of the spouses C. for an indefinite duration and ordered the husband to pay his wife a monthly pension of 750 francs. This decision was confirmed on appeal by the Cantonal Court of Neuchâtel on 8 March 1965. On 9 October 1968, Mrs. C. brought before the President of the District Court of Neuchâtel a request for protective measures of the marital union, seeking to have her husband ordered to pay her a pension of 1500 francs per month. Mr. C. concluded that the request was inadmissible, subsidiarily that it should be dismissed, on the grounds that the judge of the protective measures of the marital union was not competent to modify the pension set by the judgment of judicial separation. By order of 31 October 1968, the President of the District Court of Neuchâtel modified the judgment of judicial separation and ordered Mr. C. to pay his wife a monthly pension of 1150 francs. Mr. C. filed an appeal for nullity against this order with the Federal Tribunal.Considerations
1. The appeal for nullity provided for in Art. 68(1)(b) FSCA is admissible against the order for protective measures of the marital union, as it is a decision rendered by the last cantonal jurisdiction. 2. a) The judge of the judicial separation is competent to set the allowance that the husband must pay to his wife separated by judicial decree, under Art. 160(2) CC. When seized of conclusions on this point, he must rule in the judgment pronouncing the judicial separation. b) In the event of a change in the situation of the spouses, this allowance may be eliminated, reduced or increased by the judge, seized of an action to modify the judgment of judicial separation. The procedure for protective measures of the marital union is not applicable, as it aims to safeguard the marital…