Maintenance (alimony)

Calculation, modification and enforcement of child and spousal maintenance under Swiss law — Federal Supreme Court two-step method (BGE 144 III 481, ATF 147 III 265). Maître Andrea von Flüe.

Maintenance — for the spouse and for the children — is the single most contested chapter of most Swiss divorces. The amount, the duration, the indexation, the tax treatment and the enforcement channel each carry significant financial weight. The firm handles maintenance under the unified Federal Supreme Court method, with particular depth on cross-border situations.

The unified two-step method

Since BGE 144 III 481 (2018) and ATF 147 III 265 (2021), Swiss maintenance follows a uniform two-step method:

Step 1 — establishing each party’s minimum vital (extended)

The starting point is the LP minimum vital, then enriched with:

  • actual housing share;
  • taxes (separately calculated post-separation);
  • health insurance premiums (LAMal);
  • mandatory professional expenses (transport, meals, work clothing);
  • a 20% margin for personal needs (the “marge de vie”).

Step 2 — distributing the surplus

Once each party’s minimum is covered, any remaining surplus is distributed:

  • two units per adult;
  • one unit per child aged 10 or above;
  • 0.5 unit per child under 10.

Child maintenance (CC arts. 276-285a)

Child maintenance covers:

  • Direct needs — housing share, food, clothing, schooling, leisure.
  • Indirect costs — health insurance, childcare, unrefunded medical expenses.
  • Care contribution (Betreuungsunterhalt) — compensation for the loss of earning capacity of the parent providing daily care (art. 285 al. 2 CC, since the 2017 reform).

The care contribution is one of the most distinctive features of Swiss law. It is paid alongside the direct contribution and recognises that the custodial parent’s reduced work capacity is a cost imposed by the family arrangement.

See also : Child maintenance (CC 276) glossary entry.

Spousal maintenance (CC art. 125)

Post-divorce spousal maintenance applies in addition to child maintenance. Three categories of factors weigh:

  • Duration of the marriage and the role-sharing during the union;
  • Age and health of each spouse;
  • Professional prospects of the lower-earning spouse.

Since 2017, case law strongly favours the clean break principle: spousal maintenance is paid for a limited duration during which the lower-earning spouse must re-enter the workforce. Indefinite maintenance is now exceptional, reserved for long marriages with a structural inability of one spouse to become self-sufficient.

Modification and adjustment

Maintenance can be modified at any time if the situation evolves materially:

  • Article 134 CC for child maintenance (loss of job, illness, child reaching majority).
  • Article 129 CC for spousal maintenance (substantial improvement or deterioration of one spouse’s income).

Indexation clauses tied to the Swiss CPI ensure that nominal amounts keep their value over time. For cross-border cases, indexation must be carefully drafted.

Enforcement and recovery

A maintenance order in your favour is only as useful as your ability to enforce it:

  • SCARPA Geneva advances unpaid maintenance to low-income creditors and pursues the debtor.
  • LP proceedings (poursuites) for any Swiss-resident debtor, with definitive mainlevée on a Swiss judgment (art. 80 LP).
  • Cross-border enforcement via the Lugano Convention 2007 — see Foreign-judgment recognition.
  • Aripa (France) for French-resident debtors with creditors abroad.

See our procedure : Recovering cross-border maintenance.

Tax treatment

In Switzerland, child maintenance is deductible for the debtor and taxable for the creditor (art. 33 al. 1 let. c LIFD). Spousal maintenance is treated the same way. The tax position of each side must be projected at the negotiation stage; a contribution set without checking the marginal tax rate can lose 25-35% of its effective value.

For cross-border cases, both Swiss and French (or other foreign) tax rules must be aligned to avoid double or zero deduction.

Practical pitfalls

  • Underestimating the care contribution. A custodial parent who returns to part-time work without claiming the Betreuungsunterhalt loses years of post-divorce income.
  • Locking in a no-indexation clause to “simplify”. On a 15-year order this can cost 15-25% of value.
  • Ignoring the second-pillar pension. Maintenance and pension division interact: a generous LPP share to one spouse may justify a reduced spousal maintenance, and vice versa.
  • Forgetting the modification clause. Always provide explicit criteria for adjustment to avoid having to litigate every change of circumstances.

First consultation CHF 50.

Assess my situation