The obligation of maintenance (also known as support or alimony in other jurisdictions) constitutes a fundamental legal principle, the purpose of which is to safeguard the financial support of minor children, not only in cases where the parents’ marriage is no longer in effect, but also in any other circumstance in which the parents do not cohabit, such as no marriage was ever entered into, where they are in separation, or when, despite the existing marital relationship, they live apart.

In the Republic of Cyprus, maintenance is regulated by Order, which is issued exclusively by the Family Court having territorial jurisdiction. The Relations of Parents and Children Law of 1990 (Law 216/1990) (hereinafter “the Law”) constitutes the principal legislative framework regulating, among other things, the issue of child maintenance in the Republic of Cyprus. Articles 33–38 of the Law determine the relevant obligations and rights, as well as the criteria by which maintenance is awarded.

The Law governs the manner in which applications for maintenance are examined by the Family Courts of Cyprus, both in terms of substantive matters and in relation to procedure. In particular, Article 33 of the Law provides as follows:

“33.-(1) The parents have an obligation to support their minor child jointly, each in proportion to his or her means.

(2) By decision and order of the Court, the obligation of the parents under subsection (1) may continue even after the child’s attainment of majority, in cases where special circumstances so require, such as in the event of incapacity or disability of the child, his service in the National Guard, or his or her studies at an educational institution or vocational school.

(3) The minor child, even if in possession of property, has the right to maintenance from his or her parents.”

It is of particular importance to note that such Orders are issued upon application of the parent who has custody and care of the minor child. Alternatively, they may also be issued when the child is of full age but falls within one or more of the following categories:

1. In the event of incapacity or disability;
2. During compulsory service in the National Guard;
3. Attendance at an educational institute or vocational training school.

The absolute objective of the Courts is to protect the continuity and stability of the minor child’s standard of living, not just at the time of the marriage’s dissolution or annulment, but also in any situation involving parental separation, whether the parents may be in a state of separation, have never been married, or are still married but live apart. In addition to safeguarding, an effort is made to ensure that the standard of living of the minor child remains as close as possible to the living conditions previously enjoyed by the child, so that it does not experience any dramatic changes. This principle has been repeatedly confirmed by case law, and specifically in A.A. v. Φ.K., Application No. 115/2019, 29/11/2021, where the Court emphasised:

“As to what constitutes the needs of the beneficiary, I refer to the compendium of Apostolos S. Georgiadis, “FAMILY LAW”, where in page 652 the following is set out:

“1. Needs of the beneficiary

Maintenance includes all that is necessary for the sustenance of the beneficiary and, in addition, the expenses for upbringing, as well as for vocational and general education …. The scope of maintenance specifically encompasses the basic needs of the beneficiary which either actually exist at the time of the hearing of the action or will with certainty be foreseen in the future. Accordingly, maintenance includes every necessary living expense: food, housing, clothing, heating, lighting, other operating expenses of the residence, recreation, education (e.g., purchase of books), upbringing, medical treatment and pharmaceutical expenses, holidays, transportation and communication. In particular, it includes expenses for academic, vocational, or technical education, even postgraduate studies.”

“ΙΙ. Expenses of the Minor According to the case law (Markoulidis v. Markoulidi (1998) 1 A.A.Δ. 1386, 1390), the Court, as regards the expenses of maintenance of a minor, is not bound by the testimony of the parties, but it is the Court’s duty to ascertain the reasonableness of the sums required for the satisfaction of the needs of maintenance and sustenance. Moreover, according to the case law, common experience and the realities of life are factors which may be relied upon in assessing the needs of the individuals before the Court (see Panayiotou v. Sfiktou (2001) 1 A.A.Δ. 625).

In the decision of the Family Court of Appeal in Korellides v. Korellidi (2012) 1Γ A.A.Δ. 1975 it was held that:

“… the Court is not obliged to enter into such detail as to calculate with exact cents, but must weigh the needs and reach conclusions which will, as far as possible, restore the minor children to a situation approximating what it would have been had their parents been living together.» The Court is in a position, taking into account the respective arguments of the parties as to the child’s maintenance expenses which are naturally also related to the child’s age to determine an amount that reflects what is reasonable and in line with the lessons of common experience and life, as clearly established in the relevant case law.”

The financial status of each parent plays a significant role in deciding the amount of maintenance. Pursuant to Article 33 of the Law, parents have a joint and several obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the child in accordance with their means, having regard both to the needs of the child and to the financial and personal circumstances of the parents. It has been clarified that a parent’s financial capacity is assessed not only on actual income but also on the potential to generate income, taking into account age, health, professional qualifications, experience, and available employment prospects. Finally, it must be emphasised that in cases of either unjustified or systematic non-compliance with a Maintenance Order, the Court may, pursuant to Article 124A of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, issue a committal order against the parent in default. This measure is not imposed automatically with every omission of payment, but only where the Court determines and is satisfied that:

1. The parent liable for maintenance has the actual capacity to comply with the Maintenance Order;
2. Nevertheless, he or she has omitted or refused to pay the sums due;
3. There is no reasonable cause justifying the failure to settle the outstanding amount.

In such case, the parent liable for maintenance shall be summoned to appear before the Court in order to provide explanations for his or her non- compliance with the Maintenance Order. It should be underlined that committal does not in itself constitute a punishment, but rather an enforcement mechanism, intended to compel the parent to fulfil his or her obligation. The purpose of Article 124A is to ensure that the duty of maintenance, which is directly linked to the child’s right to an adequate standard of living, will have practical and effective application.

Eleni Vaki