In Italy, when a marriage ends in divorce, the court may order one spouse to pay periodic support to the other. This is known as the assegno divorzile. Its legal basis is Article 5(6) of Law no. 898 of December 1, 1970 (the Italian Divorce Act), which allows a judge to order payments if a former spouse lacks adequate means and is objectively unable to procure them.
For many years, Italian courts relied heavily on the idea of preserving the marital standard of living (tenore di vita). That approach has now been definitively abandoned. Modern case law from the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) makes clear that spousal support after divorce is not automatic and is not designed to replicate the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage.
The turning point came with Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, judgment no. 18287 of July 11, 2018, which clarified that the divorce allowance has a threefold function: assistance, compensatory and equalizing. The focus shifted to economic self-sufficiency and to whether the marriage itself caused an unjustified financial imbalance between the spouses. This evolution was anticipated by Cassazione, First Civil Section, judgment no. 11504 of May 10, 2017, which expressly rejected the automatic use of the marital standard of living as a decisive criterion. The key question became whether the requesting spouse can reasonably support themselves, taking into account age, health, professional skills and the concrete opportunities available.
The most recent and impactful development is Cassazione Civil Ordinance no. 1999 of January 2026. This decision represents a further step forward: it transforms the rejection of the tenore di vita criterion into a strict evidentiary rule. It is no longer sufficient to say “my former spouse earns more” or “I sacrificed my career”. The requesting spouse must prove that those sacrifices were shared marital choices and that they produced a tangible advantage for the other spouse or for the family project. In the specific case examined, a trial court had awarded a divorce allowance of 500 euro per month. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, denied the allowance and ordered restitution of the amounts paid after the divorce judgment became final. The Corte di Cassazione confirmed this outcome.
The reasoning is instructive. The spouse requesting support referred to a part-time job chosen years earlier, but failed to demonstrate lost professional opportunities, the real long-term impact on income or a direct link between that choice and the alleged economic imbalance. On the contrary, the evidence showed financial autonomy: employment income, ownership of the family home, and even increased earnings in later years. The core proof was missing.
A crucial clarification concerns the difference between maintenance during legal separation and spousal support after divorce. During separation, the marital bond still exists and the standard of living remains a central parameter. After divorce, that parameter is no longer decisive. The allowance is granted only if there is proof that the marriage produced an unjust imbalance. There is therefore no contradiction in recognizing maintenance in separation and denying support in divorce.
The most sensitive point is restitution. If a divorce allowance is later found to have been unjustified from the outset, sums paid after the divorce became final may be recoverable under the general rules on undue payment. This is not a punishment, nor an automatic claw-back of everything paid. It applies only when a later decision establishes that no entitlement ever existed. Amounts paid under separation orders remain unaffected.
From a practical perspective, this ruling raises the evidentiary threshold. Anyone seeking a divorce allowance must prepare a serious, well-documented case. It reduces discretionary shortcuts and shifts the focus from how much is paid to why it should be paid at all. Post-marital solidarity still exists, but it must be built and proven, piece by piece, within the proceedings.
For foreign readers, especially those familiar with the United States system, the contrast is clear. In many U.S. jurisdictions, alimony is often linked to marital lifestyle and guided by statutory factors or formulas. In Italy, the decisive element is proof: economic disparity alone is not enough. Legal strategy, documentation and timing are therefore essential.
Key takeaways for expats who plan to divorce in Italy
- If you are considering divorce in Italy, do not assume that spousal support will be automatic or tied to your marital lifestyle. Courts will scrutinize evidence, not narratives.
- Start thinking early in terms of proof. Italian judges increasingly require a clear causal link between marital choices and any current economic imbalance.
- Legal separation and divorce follow different logics. Something granted during separation may legitimately be denied at the divorce stage.
- Documents and information worth gathering early include:
- Employment history for both spouses, including contracts, promotions, reductions in hours or career interruptions
- Evidence of shared marital decisions affecting work or income (emails, messages, written agreements, family correspondence, etc.)
- Income documentation over time: tax returns, pay slips, professional invoices, and financial statements
- Proof of assets and property ownership, including the family home and any investments
- Documentation showing financial contributions to the family or sacrifices made for childcare or household management.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Italian family law is complex and fact‑specific. Readers should seek independent legal advice before taking decisions.
