In divorce proceedings, spousal maintenance is often determined primarily by the difference in income between the two former spouses. But income is not the whole story. The assets to which a person is entitled following the division of the marital estate can also be a decisive factor in determining whether there is a right to spousal maintenance.

This is clearly demonstrated by a recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court. Although the husband earned approximately €40,000 net per month and the wife had not worked for many years, the court rejected her claim for over €24,000 gross in spousal maintenance per month in its entirety.

The decisive factor was the substantial assets she would receive following the division. According to the court, she could be expected to use these assets to provide for her own living expenses.

The ruling shows that, in the context of spousal maintenance, consideration is given not only to what a person needs, but above all to the extent to which a person can meet those needs themselves through their own income and assets.

What is spousal maintenance?

Spousal maintenance is a contribution towards living expenses that one former spouse pays to the other following a divorce. Under the law, a spouse is only entitled to spousal maintenance if they have insufficient income to support themselves and cannot reasonably be expected to earn enough to do so.

Two concepts are important in this context: need and financial need. ‘Need’ is the amount a person requires to support themselves, based on their standard of living during the marriage. ‘Indigence’ determines whether that person is genuinely unable to provide that amount themselves, taking into account their own income and assets. Personal assets, and the return that can reasonably be expected from them, are taken into account when assessing whether a person is in need. Depending on the circumstances of the case, a person may even be expected to draw upon their assets.

Recent case law

On 14 August 2026, the Amsterdam District Court handed down a judgement in a divorce case with an international element (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:8342).

The parties had married in the United Kingdom in 2000 and had two daughters who were now of full age. The wife claimed spousal maintenance of €24,365 gross per month, based on the husband’s current income of approximately €40,000 net per month, which he earned in his post in Switzerland.

The court determined the wife’s needs to be much lower. As the family income had amounted to approximately €7,500 net per month for many years and there was no evidence that the parties’ spending patterns had increased in line with the husband’s higher income, the court applied the Court of Appeal’s standard to the earlier income level. After deducting the children’s expenses and adjusting for inflation, her needs were calculated at €4,030 net per month.

The court then assessed whether the wife was in need. Her earning capacity was not taken into account: she had not worked for many years, had looked after the children and, given her age, had few prospects on the labour market. The court acknowledged this.

But then there was the question of assets. The parties were married under the community of property regime. The total assets amounted to more than €4 million. Following division, the woman was expected to receive a share of more than €2,000,000. The court ruled that the woman could be expected to invest these assets prudently and profitably. At a return of 3 per cent, she would generate €60,000 annually, which more than covers her annual needs of €48,360. Even if she were to draw solely on the assets, this would be sufficient for a long time. The application for spousal maintenance was therefore dismissed.

The court added that the woman’s choice to potentially continue living in an expensive property – as a result of which a large portion of her assets does not generate a return – should not lead to a higher maintenance obligation for the man.

Practical advice

- Assess your financial position at an early stage: When assessing your entitlement to receive or your obligation to pay maintenance, your own assets following the division of property play a role. Arrange for a calculation to be made in good time of what you are entitled to after the division and what that means for your entitlement to or obligation to pay maintenance.

- Support your claim for maintenance with specific evidence from the marriage: The court considers the standard of living during the marriage. Expenditure incurred after the divorce does not count towards determining your maintenance needs. Keep receipts, bank statements and tax returns from the period of the marriage.

- Be aware that you must invest your assets as profitably as possible: Do not expect that a low return on investment resulting from your own choice will automatically entitle you to spousal maintenance. The court bases its decision on an objectively achievable return.

Conclusion

The ruling by the Amsterdam District Court illustrates that a claim for spousal maintenance will not automatically succeed if the claimant has considerable assets following the division of property. The court expects this capital to be used to provide for one’s own livelihood. An objective standard applies here: a reasonably achievable return. Whilst the fact that someone has been unable to build a career for many years due to care responsibilities is taken into account, it does not confer an unlimited right to a contribution from the other party if the capital offers an alternative.

Spousal maintenance is a complex matter in which your personal circumstances determine the outcome. Do not wait too long to seek legal advice, particularly if you are on the verge of a divorce or approaching the division of your matrimonial property.

Do you have any questions about spousal maintenance, divorce, the division of your matrimonial property or other family law matters? The family law solicitors at SPEE Advocaten & Mediation will be happy to assist you. With their specialism in personal and family law, they offer clear, practical guidance. Please feel free to contact us to arrange a consultation.

Angelique van den Eshoff, LL.B., solicitor