What we should know about maintenance

The Supreme Court held that the needs of persons who are entitled to maintenance, in accordance with normal living conditions for them are taken into account age, education and other circumstances that are relevant to each case, and the possibilities of persons who owe alimony is determined by their income, their property status and qualifications. Also, both parents dalzhatizdrazhka their minor children in accordance with the possibilities of each of them individually, taking into account the care of the parent with whom grown deteto.Reshenieto granting maintenance is unfair as when specified maintenance does not meet the needs a minor for providing living conditions necessary for its development and when are not consistent opportunities and material status of each roditelite.Ot other hand, the obligation to provide maintenance of an adult child is not absolute. Can not insist on awarding izdrazhkavav all cases, nor in the higher dimensions, without taking into account the ability of parents with regard to the physical and economic conditions of life in a particular sluchay.Sadat it believes that greater opportunities for parents determine and awarding of alimony in a larger size. Also, taking action to challenge paternity or maternity is not grounds for suspension of work on the claim for maintenance of the child, because the child's father to the entry into force of the decision on the request is deemed husband maykata.Sadat found that property owned by needy dependents of a child who brings income should not be taken into account when deciding whether the requirements can be satisfied by the transformation of this property. Minor child is not obliged to expropriate this property to support himself, unlike others in need. The same situation exists and when those who seek support holds only property that has the housing he needs. He is not obliged to alienate to izdarzha.Poddarzha and that need according to Art. SC 142 is a ground for the emergence of a right to maintenance. So when the child receives a pension, scholarship or placed in boarding poluinternat with full or partial government support or in connection with preparation for charitable works and receives remuneration, etc., These funds also determine whether a child is in need otizdrazhka. The Supreme Court further clarifies that parents must support their children until adulthood. This stems from their fundamental obligation to care for their children and prepare them for public benefit, however, that after the age of 16 years a rule children can work. In addition, the judges maintain that disability and the inability to sustain the property, as a prerequisite to the right to maintenance in art. 139 SC must exist objectively and cumulatively, for creating this pravo.Varhovniyat court determined yet, it is acceptable agreement between the parents, in which each parent agrees to support this child, who is with him, without paying for the other a child living with the other parent. This does not affect the right of children to enjoy support, and refers only to the fulfillment of the obligation / Art. 73 CPA /. In all cases, the court is obliged to assess the Agreement to children should not be deprived of the full support and not prejudice their interesi.Sadat further states that the failure to provide support not extinguish the right to maintenance at all and for all, but only for the time while she continues. Moreover, those who are capable of working and not unduly work is not exempt from davatizdrazhka. The possibilities are determined according to their qualifications and other circumstances that are relevant to the case. In objecting that it is objectively impossible to provide support, individuals are required to establish reasons outside their will that led to this failure. In this sense, and the opinion that the reduction in income due intention not to give alimony or taking work inconsistent with qualification not considered grounds for release amount of maintenance in less than originally established. The Court adds that the capable parents, who live on a scholarship, pension or only a benefit paid by their parents, are not exempt from the maintenance of their detsa.Oshte a hypothesis examined by the judges is the right of maintenance of minor marriage. The Court is of the opinion that in these cases the right to maintenance shall not be extinguished and passes from parents to the wife of a minor if he is an adult and able-bodied or have property, to be endured. If he is a minor or incapacitated and no property from which to support himself, the maintenance obligation remains under Art. 140 SC

Back

Attorney at law Iuila Danova

#3, Dobrotica Str., Varna, Bulgaria

Mob: +359 895 64 59 40

WWW: advokatvarna.com

Email: iulia.danova@abv.bg