Facts
The Federal Court had to decide on a case in which the defendant (husband) appealed against the judgment of the FJA of the Canton of Lucerne. The defendant and the plaintiff (wife) had been married since 1984 and had three sons. The wife had worked part-time during the marriage and managed the household. After the separation in 1998, she increased her gainful employment to 40%.
The District Court had obliged the defendant to make monthly maintenance payments for the children and the plaintiff. The FJA had set the maintenance contribution for the plaintiff at CHF 1,500.-- until the end of September 2008 and at CHF 800.-- from October 2008. The defendant challenged this decision and requested that the maintenance contribution be revoked from October 2008.
The Federal Court had to decide whether the FJA had clarified and established the relevant standard of living as a matter of fact and whether the plaintiff could extend her gainful employment to 100% from October 2008.
Considerations
The Federal Court stated that the FJA had not sufficiently clarified and established the relevant standard of living. The FJA had set the maintenance contribution for the plaintiff without explaining how it had evaluated the established economic circumstances in relation to the matter of fact of the relevant standard of living.
The Federal Court found that the FJA had considered the plaintiff as a part-time gainfully employed person who could extend her gainful employment in line with the reduction of childcare obligations. However, the FJA had not established whether the plaintiff could extend her gainful employment…