Spousal Maintenance Before and After Divorce in the Czech Republic
The maintenance obligation between spouses and the maintenance obligation towards a divorced spouse are two separate legal institutes, with different conditions for arising, a different purpose and a different scope. Spousal maintenance in the Czech Republic must be carefully distinguished on this point, since the maintenance obligation between spouses lasts throughout the marriage, whereas the divorced spouse's claim to maintenance arises only once the divorce judgment becomes final, and is subject to considerably stricter conditions.
On 1 January 2026, an extensive amendment to family law introduced by Act No. 268/2025 Coll. entered into force. It substantially reshaped divorce proceedings (for example, the court generally no longer examines the causes of the marital breakdown) and merged them with proceedings on the arrangement of minor children's affairs. The substantive rules on spousal maintenance in the Czech Republic and on maintenance for a divorced spouse were left untouched by this amendment, yet it brings two notable consequences in practice.
First, the amendment expressly added to the statute the criterion of so called potential income, which until then had only been derived from case law.
Second, the taking of evidence on the causes of the marital breakdown, which is decisive for the claim to so called qualified maintenance of a divorced spouse, has moved out of the divorce proceedings and into separate proceedings on that specific claim.
Regimes of Spousal Maintenance in the Czech Republic
Under § 655(1) of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code (hereinafter the "Civil Code"), marriage is "a permanent union of a man and a woman entered into in the manner laid down by this Act. The main purpose of marriage is to found a family, properly raise children, and provide mutual support and assistance." This provision underlies the statutory duty of spouses to support one another. The Act turns this general duty of support into an enforceable pecuniary obligation in § 697(1) of the Civil Code, which states: "Spouses have a mutual maintenance obligation to the extent that ensures both of them essentially the same material and cultural standard of living. The maintenance obligation between spouses takes precedence over the maintenance obligation towards a child and towards parents."
The Czech Civil Code distinguishes two regimes of mutual maintenance obligation between spouses, which differ in purpose, conditions of origin and scope:
- maintenance between spouses during the marriage under § 697 of the Civil Code, and
- maintenance of a divorced spouse under §§ 760 to 763 of the Civil Code.
Spousal Maintenance in the Czech Republic Before Divorce
Under § 697(1) of the Civil Code, spouses have "a mutual maintenance obligation to the extent that ensures both of them essentially the same material and cultural standard of living. The maintenance obligation between spouses takes precedence over the maintenance obligation towards a child and towards parents." To determine its scope, § 697(2) of the Civil Code refers to the general provisions on maintenance, in particular § 913(1) of the Civil Code, under which "the reasonable needs of the entitled person and their financial situation, as well as the abilities, possibilities and financial situation of the obligated person, are decisive for determining the scope of maintenance". The general condition for maintenance under § 911 of the Civil Code is that "the entitled person is not capable of supporting themselves"; for spouses, however, as the case law described below shows, this condition is interpreted considerably more broadly than its literal wording suggests.
Constitutional Court Case Law
A significant interpretive decision is the recent judgment of the Constitutional Court of 12 March 2025, case no. IV. ÚS 2691/24, issued in a case involving spouses with above average income, whose conclusions nonetheless apply generally to the interpretation of § 697 of the Civil Code as such. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the statutory rules on spousal maintenance in the Czech Republic reflect the broader constitutional principle of equality between men and women, grounded in Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and in Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and that civil courts must consistently respect this principle when deciding on maintenance between spouses. Failure to do so breaches the right of spouses to equality within the marriage.
Three key propositions for practice follow from the reasoning of the above judgment:
- "Civil courts must avoid a situation in which they arbitrarily deny the entitled spouse the possibility of having essentially the same material and cultural standard of living as the other spouse" (paragraph 27 of the judgment).
- A court may not add to the statute its own criterion, unknown to the law, such as the entitled spouse's dependence or reliance on the obligated spouse (paragraph 36 of the judgment). Maintenance between spouses applies already where one spouse is capable of meeting their own needs, but to a lesser degree than the other; full dependence is not required.
- The term "material and cultural standard of living" covers a broad range of qualitative aspects, from nutrition, clothing and housing to education and culture, and even healthcare and social care; the court must take into account not only the income and assets, but also the actual way of life of both spouses (paragraph 40 of the judgment).
When deciding on maintenance between spouses, a court must therefore assess the personal, family and financial circumstances of both spouses together, rather than in isolation.
Purpose and Limits of the Maintenance Claim
Maintenance between spouses during marriage has an equalising, not a compensatory, function. According to the cited judgment, it does not serve to obtain, without effort, resources that could be achieved through one's own endeavour, nor to preserve a luxurious lifestyle or social status as such, but rather to remove a clear disparity in the material and cultural standard of living between the spouses. It is not compensation for time devoted to the family or to the other spouse. An equal material and cultural standard of living does not imply equal assets.
Potential Income of the Entitled Spouse
A court must examine not only the actual income of the entitled spouse, but also their potential income, that is, whether the entitled spouse genuinely seeks income corresponding to their abilities and possibilities. This principle was formulated by the Constitutional Court in its resolution of 30 July 2019, case no. III. ÚS 2097/19, which stated that it is "fully in line with the principle of fairness to make the equalisation of the material and cultural standard of living between spouses conditional on the entitled spouse genuinely trying to achieve an income corresponding to their abilities and possibilities, where this can reasonably be expected of them given the circumstances. Spousal maintenance in such a case equalises the material and cultural standard of living that the entitled spouse cannot reach through their own abilities and possibilities. Spousal maintenance is not meant, however, to allow the entitled spouse to obtain from the obligated spouse, without effort, that part of the benefit which they could achieve through their own effort, which can reasonably be expected of them given the circumstances of the case".
In the same resolution, the Constitutional Court also referred to the opinion of the Supreme Court of 19 October 2016, case no. Cpjn 204/2012, under which only "income that corresponds both to the abilities and possibilities of the obligated person, and in particular to supply and demand on a reasonably defined regional labour market appropriate to that person's abilities and possibilities" can be regarded as potential income.
With effect from 1 January 2026, this principle was expressly enshrined in the statute by the amendment, specifically in § 913(3) of the Civil Code, under which "when assessing the abilities and possibilities of the obligated person, it is also necessary to examine whether that person gave up, without a good reason, more advantageous employment or gainful activity, and whether the income they earn corresponds to the income they could earn, in particular in view of their state of health, education and qualifications, and also in view of the labour market situation at the place of their workplace or residence. When assessing the financial situation of the obligated person, it is also necessary to examine whether that person gave up, without good reason, a financial benefit, or whether they are taking on disproportionate financial risks. Account must also be taken of the fact that the obligated person personally cares for the entitled person, and of the extent to which they do so; care for the family household may also be taken into account."
Similarly, § 913(2) of the Civil Code now expressly provides that "when assessing the reasonable needs of the entitled person, any future change to those needs shall be taken into account, if it can reasonably be determined". In this respect, the legislature merely codified what had already been established by constitutional and civil case law.
Indirect protection for a spouse dependent on maintenance is also provided by the so called hardship clause under § 755(2)(b) of the Civil Code, under which a court will exceptionally not grant a divorce if this would be "contrary to the interest of the spouse who did not substantially contribute to the breakdown by breaching marital duties, and who would suffer particularly serious harm as a result of the divorce". The purpose of this provision is not primarily to force the resumption of married life, but to preserve for such a spouse the legal advantages of an ongoing marriage, chiefly the right to maintenance under § 697 of the Civil Code and the right to housing.
Admissibility of an Extraordinary Appeal
The Supreme Court, in its resolution of 9 February 2021, case no. 24 Cdo 3800/2020, held that an extraordinary appeal against a decision on maintenance between spouses is not admissible under § 238(1)(a) of Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the Code of Civil Procedure, since it concerns a matter regulated in Part Two of the Civil Code that does not relate to matrimonial property law. Decision making power in this area is therefore effectively concentrated with the appellate courts, and Supreme Court review is limited to exceptional procedural situations.
Spousal Maintenance in the Czech Republic After Divorce
Once the divorce judgment becomes final, the marital relationship between the former spouses ends, and with it, in principle, the mutual maintenance obligation under § 697 of the Civil Code. The law also grants maintenance to a divorced spouse, but under considerably stricter conditions, set out in §§ 760 to 763 of the Civil Code.
Conditions for Granting Maintenance
Under § 760(1) of the Civil Code, "if a divorced spouse is not capable of supporting themselves, and this incapacity originates in or is connected with the marriage, their former spouse has a proportionate maintenance obligation towards them, if this can fairly be required of the former spouse, in particular with regard to the age or state of health of the divorced spouse at the time of the divorce or at the end of care for a joint child of the divorced spouses". This provision sets out two cumulative conditions:
- the divorced spouse's incapacity to support themselves, and
- a causal link between that incapacity and the marriage, typically long term care for a joint child that prevented professional advancement, or a state of health that arose during the marriage.
Unlike maintenance during marriage, these proceedings do not examine the difference in the material and cultural standard of living between the former spouses, but rather the divorced spouse's capacity to meet their basic needs and the cause of any shortfall.
When deciding on maintenance for a divorced spouse, or on its amount, a court under § 760(2) of the Civil Code takes into account, in particular:
- how long the marriage lasted,
- how long the divorce has lasted,
- whether the divorced spouse has failed to secure suitable employment despite there being no serious obstacle to doing so,
- whether they could have secured their livelihood through proper management of their own assets,
- whether they contributed to the care of the family household during the marriage,
- whether they committed an act of a criminal nature against the former spouse or a person close to them, or
- whether there is another similarly serious reason.
The legislature thereby deliberately protects the interests of the obligated spouse as well, since maintenance is conditional, among other things, on the entitled spouse not failing to actively address their own situation, and is excluded in the event of serious unlawful conduct towards the obligated spouse or a person close to them.
Qualified Maintenance for a Divorced Spouse in the Czech Republic
Alongside the basic regimes, the law also provides for so called qualified, sometimes referred to as sanction, maintenance for a divorced spouse under § 762(1) of the Civil Code: "If the spouses or divorced spouses do not agree on maintenance, a spouse who did not substantially cause the breakdown of the marriage, or who did not consent to the divorce, and who has suffered serious harm as a result of the divorce, may propose that the court establish the former spouse's maintenance obligation even to an extent that ensures the divorced spouses have essentially the same standard of living, that is, to an extent comparable to the standard during the marriage. This right to maintenance can be considered justified only for a period appropriate to the circumstances, but no longer than three years from the divorce." Further, § 762(2) of the Civil Code provides that "if the former spouse has engaged in conduct against the other spouse that constitutes domestic violence, they have no right to maintenance under paragraph 1, even if they would otherwise meet the conditions for the right to maintenance".
The amendment in force since 1 January 2026 moved the taking of evidence on the causes of the marital breakdown out of the divorce proceedings and into separate proceedings on the claim under § 762 of the Civil Code. An applicant for qualified maintenance must now prove, separately in the maintenance proceedings, that they did not substantially cause the breakdown or did not consent to the divorce, since this question is no longer examined in the divorce proceedings themselves.
Scope of the Maintenance Obligation
The scope of the maintenance obligation and the manner of providing maintenance are governed, in the first instance, by an agreement between the spouses or divorced spouses under § 761(1) of the Civil Code: "The scope of the maintenance obligation and the manner of providing maintenance are governed by an agreement between the spouses or divorced spouses; if they agree that the maintenance will be replaced by a lump sum settlement, the divorced spouse's right to maintenance ceases upon payment of that settlement."
According to case law, such an agreement may validly be concluded even before the divorce judgment becomes final. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 4 May 2004, case no. 30 Cdo 135/2004, confirmed this conclusion, emphasising in its reasoning that the term "divorced spouse" expresses that, under the statutory conditions, the right to maintenance after divorce belongs to the divorced spouse, and "not to a former spouse, that is, to someone who has entered into a new marriage after the divorce". The current Civil Code expressly retains this terminological distinction between a divorced spouse and a former spouse in § 763: "The right of a divorced spouse to maintenance ceases if the entitled divorced spouse enters into a new marriage, or enters into a registered partnership." The possibility of agreeing on maintenance for the period after divorce while the marriage is still ongoing is now also envisaged by § 757(1)(c) of the Civil Code, within the framework of the so called agreed divorce: "If a spouse joins the petition for divorce filed by the other spouse, or if the spouses file a joint petition, and it is established that the spouses agree on the breakdown of the marriage and on their intention to obtain a divorce, the conditions under § 755(1) are deemed met, provided the spouses have agreed on the arrangement of their property relations, their housing, and, where applicable, maintenance for the period after the divorce."
Termination of the Right to Maintenance
Under § 763 of the Civil Code, a divorced spouse's right to maintenance ceases "if the entitled divorced spouse enters into a new marriage, or enters into a registered partnership", since a new marriage or partnership gives rise to a maintenance obligation towards the new partner. Simply living with a new partner without entering into marriage or a registered partnership does not, by operation of law, extinguish the claim. Under § 922(1) of the Civil Code, both maintenance between spouses and maintenance for a divorced spouse can be awarded "only from the date the court proceedings commence", that is, from the date the petition is delivered to the court, and retroactive maintenance for any period before the petition was filed is not possible.
Conclusion
Maintenance between spouses and maintenance for a divorced spouse are institutes with a different legal nature. During the marriage, both the statute and case law protect equality in the standard of living of the spouses, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court's judgment no. IV. ÚS 2691/24. After divorce, spousal maintenance in the Czech Republic narrows to helping a spouse whose incapacity to provide for themselves originates in the marriage, and only to a proportionate extent; broader protection comparable to the standard of living during the marriage is available only exceptionally, for a maximum of three years, and subject to the further conditions under § 762 of the Civil Code. Given the procedural limits on the admissibility of an extraordinary appeal, Supreme Court case law in both areas remains limited, which increases the importance of Constitutional Court case law.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us at:
ECOVIS ježek, advokátní kancelář s.r.o.
Betlémské nám. 6
110 00 Praha 1
e-mail: mojmir.jezek@ecovislegal.cz
www.ecovislegal.cz
ECOVIS ježek, advokátní kancelář s.r.o.
The Czech law firm ECOVIS ježek focuses its practice primarily on commercial law, real estate law, litigation, but also finance and banking law and provides full-service advice in all areas. This creates an alternative for clients of international law firms. The international dimension of the services provided is ensured through experience and cooperation with leading law firms in most European countries, the USA, and other jurisdictions. This cooperation occurs within the network ECOVIS, which operates in 75 countries worldwide. ECOVIS ježek team members have many years of experience from leading international law and tax firms. They provide legal advice to multinational corporations, large Czech companies, medium-sized companies, and individual clients. For more information please visit www.ecovislegal.cz.
