Divorce, allowance lost if she has a new partner even if he/she lives in another country

The new romantic relationship means that the ex-wife loses the right to the divorce allowance, even if the partner lives in Germany and she in Italy. It is also irrelevant that she has no income and is not in a position to work, due to a heart attack that has left her with permanent sequelae.
The Court of Cassation upheld the ex-husband's appeal and annulled with reference the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had not only confirmed the allowance, but had also restored the initial figure of 900 euros per month, reduced to 300 euros at first instance.

For the territorial court, in fact, the stable cohabitation that would allow the ex-husband to close the purse strings was not proven. On the contrary, it was proven that she did not work, and was therefore unable to support herself independently, because she suffered from serious health problems. Following a heart attack, in fact, she suffered from chronic ischemic heart disease.
For the second instance judges, only the existence of a simple sentimental relationship for the woman had been established. And it was undisputed that the new man resided in Germany, while she lived in Italy. "The fact that the two travel together or that they receive visits in their place of residence from the other partner does not prove a stable and effective cohabitation of the same, as these elements are indicative of a mere long-distance relationship with the risks that this type of relationship entails, precisely in terms of instability and lack of certainty as to its development, so that it cannot be considered that in this condition the proof of a common life project with the formation of a new de facto family has been achieved.

The Supreme Court's opinion was different, upholding the ex-husband's appeal, despite the woman's undeniable difficulty in being economically autonomous. For the Court of Cassation, in fact, it is not sufficient "to note, as the trial judge did, that the partners have two separate homes (albeit in different cities), to exclude a common life project and a stable more uxorio relationship, as this can nowadays take on forms that are very distant from the model of a static society.

The court will therefore have to ascertain whether that distance encompasses a different way of living the full and stable relationship, made up of solidarity between the partners, as if they were spouses following a common life project and mutual support.