Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
According to Supreme Court Judgment No. 4959/2552, the plaintiff and the defendant had 2 children together. After marriage, the defendant was the person with income from official service, while the plaintiff was a housewife with no income and performed the duty of caring for the family. Later, the two lived separately since the year 2539 because the defendant physically assaulted the plaintiff and went to support another woman as a wife, causing the defendant to stop sending money to assist the plaintiff after his official retirement.The Supreme Court ruled that the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1461, paragraph two, stipulates that husband and wife must assist, maintain, and support each other according to their capability and status, and Section 1598/38 gives the right to claim maintenance when the party who should receive it does not receive support or receives insufficient support for living.The Court saw that the duty of maintenance does not arise only in the case of filing for divorce. If one spouse has the capability but does not provide assistance, the other party can file a lawsuit claiming maintenance even while still maintaining the status of husband and wife. Although the defendant claimed that both voluntarily lived separately, the Court saw that the separation did not arise from the fault of the plaintiff, and the defendant still had a status capable of providing assistance, while the plaintiff had no income, thereby having the right to receive maintenance.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering the defendant to pay maintenance to the plaintiff at 3,500 Baht per month from the date of filing the lawsuit onwards, because the duty of husband and wife in maintaining and supporting each other still persists, even if they live separately and have not yet divorced from each other.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 7071/2017, Section 1598/38 of the Civil and Commercial Code provides that a spouse who has not received maintenance, or has received insufficient maintenance, is entitled to claim such support. In determining the amount, the court considers the financial circumstances of the recipient, the ability of the paying spouse to provide support, and the circumstances of the case.In this case, the defendant moved to live elsewhere and ceased providing financial support. The plaintiff earned only THB 9,000 per month, while the defendant was a lawyer and also received income from a company. Although the defendant had transferred a house, land, and a motor vehicle to the plaintiff, the court found that these assets did not generate regular income and were therefore insufficient to cover the plaintiff’s living expenses.In addition, the defendant’s obligation to support the child was nearing its end. The court therefore ordered the defendant to pay THB 80,000 in retrospective maintenance and THB 10,000 per month thereafter until the marriage was terminated.This judgment confirms that ownership of substantial assets does not, by itself, extinguish a spouse’s right to claim maintenance. Where those assets do not generate sufficient income to meet the spouse’s living needs, the court may still order the other spouse to provide maintenance in an amount considered necessary and fair in light of the circumstances of each case.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 1106/2007, the wife filed a counterclaim seeking monthly maintenance from her husband, alleging that he had abandoned her, failed to provide support, and was responsible for the grounds for divorce.However, the Supreme Court held that, when the counterclaim was considered as a whole, the defendant’s true intention was to claim maintenance under Section 1526 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Such a right arises only when the court has granted a divorce and the divorce has caused the other spouse to become impoverished.This judgment emphasizes an important legal principle: spousal maintenance under Section 1526 may be claimed only after a divorce has been granted. If the marriage has not yet been terminated, the court cannot order payment of maintenance under this provision, even if the other spouse is experiencing financial hardship due to the lack of support.In this case, both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s divorce claim, meaning that the marriage remained legally valid. Since no judgment granting a divorce had been issued, the conditions required under Section 1526 had not yet arisen. The court therefore could not order the husband to pay maintenance to the wife, even though the facts showed that he had failed to provide her with financial support.The judgment therefore reaffirms that spousal maintenance under Section 1526 may be claimed only once a divorce has been granted. As long as the marriage remains legally in force, the court cannot order maintenance under this provision, even where one spouse suffers hardship because the other has failed to provide support.