{"id":5937,"date":"2026-03-27T09:47:07","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T08:47:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/?p=5937"},"modified":"2026-03-27T09:47:07","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T08:47:07","slug":"geen-partneralimentatie-door-ernstig-grensoverschrijdend-gedrag-rechtbank-den-haag-zet-streep-door-lotsverbondenheid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/geen-partneralimentatie-door-ernstig-grensoverschrijdend-gedrag-rechtbank-den-haag-zet-streep-door-lotsverbondenheid\/","title":{"rendered":"No spousal maintenance due to serious inappropriate behaviour: The Hague District Court rejects claim of shared destiny"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a judgment of The Hague District Court dated 20 January 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:3312)<\/a> , a claim for spousal maintenance was rejected because the judge ruled that the bond of shared destiny between the former spouses had been severed. The decisive factor was the woman\u2019s structurally inappropriate behaviour towards the man, which was deemed plausible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Facts and proceedings<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

The case arose in the context of interim relief proceedings. The woman sought a spousal maintenance order of \u20ac290 per month. The man opposed this, arguing that there was no longer any bond of shared destiny due to the woman\u2019s seriously offensive behaviour during the marriage.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the man, there had been systematic psychological and physical abuse. He described a pattern of shouting, humiliation, intimidation and physical violence. The situation was said to have been so unsafe that he was eventually admitted to a care home. In support of his case, he submitted, among other things, statements from his daughters confirming his fear and vulnerable position. Documents from the district nursing service were also submitted, revealing concerns about the home situation, including signs of malnutrition and physical injury.<\/span><\/p>\n

The woman contested these allegations and claimed that they had a good marriage. She supported this with photographs showing the couple together and a letter signed by the man in which he spoke positively of her.<\/span><\/p>\n

Assessment by the court<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

The court attached little weight to the photographs submitted by the woman and characterised them as snapshots that did not provide any insight into the actual relationship. The letter was also viewed critically. The man stated that he had not drafted it himself and that he did not know what he was signing. The court considered this plausible, partly in view of the language used.<\/span><\/p>\n

In contrast, the court considered the man\u2019s statements, supported by statements from third parties and medical and care-related documents, to be sufficiently convincing. The court considered that the woman\u2019s behaviour was not only serious but was still having an impact on the man\u2019s well-being. It also took into account that the woman showed no understanding of the consequences of her actions.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court concluded that there had been grievous behaviour that had broken the bond of fate. Under these circumstances, the man could not reasonably be expected to contribute to the woman\u2019s maintenance. The application for spousal maintenance was therefore dismissed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Implications for practice<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

This ruling confirms that a breach of the bond of fate is only accepted in exceptional cases, but that there is indeed scope for this where there is serious and persistent inappropriate behaviour. The bar is set high and the court applies a cautious approach, but where the facts are sufficiently substantiated, this can lead to a complete rejection of spousal maintenance.<\/span><\/p>\n

The evidence is particularly important. Not only statements from the parties themselves, but also supporting documents from third parties, such as family members and care agencies, can be decisive.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

This ruling underlines that spousal maintenance is not automatic. In exceptional circumstances, the right to it may lapse entirely. This requires a careful legal assessment and a strong substantiation of the facts.<\/span><\/p>\n

At SPEE advocaten & mediation, we have extensive experience in family law, including cases concerning spousal maintenance, termination of the marital bond and complex divorce matters. We support clients in Maastricht and beyond with expert and dedicated advice. If you have any questions about spousal maintenance or would like to know what this ruling might mean for your situation, please do not hesitate to contact us.<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In een uitspraak van de rechtbank Den Haag van 20 januari 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:3312) is een verzoek tot partneralimentatie afgewezen, omdat de rechter oordeelde dat de lotsverbondenheid tussen ex-echtgenoten was verbroken. Doorslaggevend was het aannemelijk geachte, structureel grensoverschrijdende gedrag van de vrouw jegens de man. feiten en procesverloop De zaak speelde in het kader van een […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5578,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":65,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualiteiten"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5937"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5937\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5938,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5937\/revisions\/5938"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5578"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}