According to the Supreme Court, Article 97 requires that, for alimony to be payable, the divorce or separation must produce an economic imbalance as between the spouses which then gives rise the right to a compensatory or alimony payment. To determine whether a disequilibrium has been caused, a number of factors previously discussed by the Supreme Court must be taken into account.
The purpose of Article 97, recalled the Court, was to ensure that any prejudicial impact which might arise from cohabitation should not impact solely on one of the spouses. To determine if this has happened, t is necessary to consider what has happened throughout the marriage such as dedication to the family on the part of one spouse, supporting the activities of the other spouse, the economic regimen specified in the marriage and even the spouses circumstances before they were married.
In the present case, the marriage did not prevent the wife from working and indeed she continued to do so. Nor did the marriage deprive her of career possibilities, which would suggest that she has the requisite qualifications and aptitude to lead an independent lifestyle from an economic point of view. Nor was it proved that the difference in income between the two spouses was directly caused by any sacrifice made by the wife during the marriage as a result of a greater dedication to the child and specifically as a result of her care of their child, now of legal age and financially independent with a job, nor that the increase in the husband’s income was a result of any such dedication.