Swiss multimillionaire tries to force ex-wife to work to reduce alimony payments

The Swiss judicial system initially ruled that the wife was entitled to a monthly allowance of 25,000 francs (which amounts to just over 27,000 euros). This amount did not satisfy either party: the woman demanded more, while the man insisted on a lower sum. The case was appealed.

The woman justified her demands by stating that her lifestyle during the marriage, which included seaside accommodation, luxury cars, yachts, and private air travel, could not be supported by the sum of 25,000 francs.

Husband's arguments and court decision

The husband argued that the wife should find a job, and he would cover the remaining expenses. That is, if she earned one thousand francs per month, he would pay the remaining 24,000. However, this version did not convince the cantonal Supreme Court where the couple resides. The court noted that during the marriage, a traditional division of roles was maintained: the woman managed the home and children, while the man worked and covered the expenses.

Thus, returning the woman to professional activity was deemed practically impossible both due to a long break from work and her advanced age. Even if she managed to find a job, in her current situation, these would be low-paying sectors insufficient to maintain her previous standard of living or significantly reduce the alimony amount.

The husband also claimed that his wife could have worked during the marriage but chose not to, emphasizing that the couple had sufficient funds to hire a nanny for the children. The woman countered that she never looked for work, even after the couple stopped living together. Furthermore, the husband insisted that the wife could easily earn between 5,000 and 8,000 francs per month.

Outcome of the legal process

Both the husband's appeal (who wanted to pay less) and the wife's appeal (who wanted to receive more) were rejected by the court, which upheld the initial ruling: 25,000 francs monthly. At the time of this decision, the couple was in the process of divorce but formally remained married.