Facts
The complainant [X.] and the respondent [Y.] are divorced spouses with two common children. By preliminary judgment of the District Court of Aarau of 17 March 2003, the complainant was ordered to pay the respondent monthly and in advance CHF 750.-- for the maintenance of the two common children and CHF 1,500.-- for her personal maintenance. The complainant requested a modification of this decision in September 2004 and sought a reduction of the maintenance payments. The High Court of the Canton of Aargau partially lifted the original decision and ordered the complainant to pay the respondent monthly and in advance CHF 600.-- for the maintenance of the children, plus any possible child allowances, and CHF 981.-- for her personal maintenance.
The complainant filed a constitutional complaint against this decision and claimed that the High Court had arbitrarily failed to consider the costs of the private vehicle and thus violated Art. 9 Cst. The complainant requested the annulment of the High Court's decision and applied for free legal aid.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the constitutional complaint and found that the complainant could not submit new factual and legal arguments, as this is generally inadmissible in constitutional complaint proceedings. The Federal Court reviewed the High Court's decision and found that it had rightly not considered the costs of the private vehicle, as the complainant had not demonstrated that his professional situation had changed and that he was dependent on a private vehicle.
The Federal Court pointed out that the principle of investigation…