Facts
The dispute opposes H., the father, to S., the mother, concerning the maintenance contribution for their son X. The Cantonal Court decided that the mother did not have to pay a maintenance contribution for her son. The father appealed this decision to the Federal Court.
The facts of the case are as follows: the Cantonal Court rendered a judgment on 19 September 1989, granting custody of son X to the father and deciding that the mother did not have to pay a maintenance contribution. The father requested a revision of this judgment, which was confirmed by the Cantonal Court on 17 January 1990.
Considerations
The issue in dispute is whether the child maintenance contribution can be considered a pecuniary dispute within the meaning of art. 46 FJA, which would imply that the amount in dispute must be at least 8,000 Swiss francs for the appeal to be admissible.
Prior case law of the Federal Court considered that the decision on child maintenance could not be separated from the issue of parental authority and that, consequently, the amount in dispute was not required. However, this case law has been criticized by doctrine, which believes that there is no reason to treat child maintenance contributions differently from other pecuniary disputes.
The Federal Court decided to change its case law and consider that child maintenance is a pecuniary dispute, which means that the amount in dispute must be at least 8,000 Swiss francs…