September 2026 – Award of maintenance of €550 in favor of our client in case of joint custody with simultaneous alternating residence of the children – Rejection of the opposing party’s application for a ban on the mother’s relocation with their minor children as inadmissible due to vagueness and lack of urgency
With the decision no. 5577/2026 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (Procedure for Protective Measures), an application for a maintenance award in favor of our client (on behalf of her 2 minor children) was accepted, in a case where both parents maintained, following the conclusion of a private agreement in the context of a consensual divorce, joint custody of their minor children (their 2 daughters) with simultaneous alternating residence in the home each of the parents.
With the said decision, based on our presented and proven allegations, it was recognized that the validity of the above agreement with regard to the issue of maintenance of minor children had been terminated, as a result of which the regulatory intervention of the Court was necessary, and the award of a sufficient amount of maintenance in favor of the principal (on behalf of her minor children) for the period that they reside with her, namely for the total period of 15 days per month.
More specifically, the above decision recognized, despite the efforts of the opposing party to present a distorted picture of his financial strength, that the ratio of the parents’ strengths is such that essentially the opposing party – the father of the minor children – must be burdened with 75% of their monthly maintenance needs, and ultimately ruled that the amount of €550 should be awarded against him as maintenance for his minor children for the period of 15 days per month that they reside with their mother – our principal, in addition to the expenses that he must pay for their maintenance for the remaining period of 15 days per month, which the minor children reside with him.At the same time, it rejected as inadmissible due to vagueness and lack of urgency the opposing party’s application requesting a ban on the relocation of our client with her minor children to another area of Attica, the Court essentially recognized the pretense of which, as demonstrated by our side in the hearing, no valid evidence of our client’s intention to relocate was invoked or presented by the opposing party.
You may find more court decisions in related family law cases recently handled by our office, see here and here .