According to the data of the case, Erikas P. applied to the district court of the city of Vilnius with a claim against his ex-wife. The husband asked for the maintenance of the defendant’s minor son in periodic payments of 400 euros per month.
After the divorce, they lived together
The plaintiff explained that the defendant is his ex-wife. Their marriage was already dissolved, but after that they continued to live together.
Then a son was born to them. After the birth of her son, the defendant lived with their daughter, plaintiff and son until 2019. The plaintiff supported his family.
In 2019, the defendant moved to another place, the son stayed with his father. After the ex-wife left to live elsewhere, from 2021 June 1 she stopped taking care of her son’s material well-being, does not provide maintenance.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant carries out individual activities and her financial situation is good. The son communicates with the mother at her place of residence, but does not receive maintenance or support.
Currently, the defendant has moved to live elsewhere and the plaintiff and her son do not know her new place of residence.
Based on the regulations relevant to the dispute, the plaintiff points out that the defendant, being healthy, working, receiving a good income, does not contribute to the maintenance of her son. After starting to live separately, it was not possible to reach an agreement with the defendant regarding the maintenance of the son.
The plaintiff states that the son’s needs cost 800 euros per month, so the mother should provide 400 euros in maintenance.
Considering the fact that the defendant does not provide maintenance to her son from 2021. on June 1, maintenance should be awarded from the day the right to maintenance arises until the child comes of age.
Posted a search for a woman
The defendant did not file a response to the lawsuit within the deadline set by the court. It should be noted that procedural documents were sent to the defendant at the address of the last known place of residence specified by the plaintiff, but she did not receive them.
in 2024 January 15 the order re-announced the search for the defendant through the police, again instructing the police to hand over the documents to the defendant, but until 2024. March 5 the hearing data on the delivery of procedural documents to the defendant were not received again.
in 2024 March 5 during the held preliminary hearing, taking into account the fact that it is not possible to serve the procedural documents to the defendant in any other way, it was decided to serve the procedural documents and to announce the next preliminary hearing to the defendant by public announcement.
When the procedural documents and information about the meeting were published by way of public announcement, a link to connect to the meeting via Zoom was published at the same time, thus enabling the defendant to join the meeting remotely.
The institution providing the conclusion in the case, the State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service, submitted a conclusion in which it was stated that the claim for maintenance for the son was filed in his interests, and the amount of maintenance requested would possibly satisfy the needs of the teenager.
The service indicated that the plaintiff was contacted by mobile phone, who stated that his son refuses to communicate with the specialist. The man said that he would try to talk his son into meeting and listening to his opinion.
A meeting time was agreed with the plaintiff. Also, in the documents attached by the Service, it is indicated that upon arrival on the specified day, the child was not at home. When the plaintiff contacted his son, he stated that he had gone with the scooter, which may have broken down and he could not return home.
During the interview, the plaintiff also stated that the child has been living with him since 2019. September 26 The plaintiff said that the defendant does not provide child support, buys a few clothes and small things. Sometimes hot food was brought to the child from work.
According to the husband, the defendant received the child’s money for 2.5 years, which she used for her own purposes. Currently, the claimant receives the child’s money, but transfers it to the child’s bank account on the same day.
According to the man, the child buys clothes, shoes and other necessary things for himself, when he comes he tells the amount of money spent and the money is returned to him. According to the husband, the defendant does not contribute to the child’s education, free time, maintenance, etc.
According to the plaintiff, he does not interfere in the child’s communication with the mother, does not prohibit communication, seeing each other. The man said that he transfers the child’s money to the child’s personal bank account and fully supports his son.
The Office also indicated that the respondent was contacted by mobile phone. The woman stated that she had not received or familiarized herself with the demands of the lawsuit. The child’s mother said that she gives her son about 50-60 euros in cash every week, buys clothes, shoes, food, pays for the sports club, and buys things as needed.
The woman stated that she meets her son almost every day – after school, his son comes to her work, to her house, eats together, communicates. According to the child’s mother, the plaintiff forbids her son to communicate and meet with her, so the defendant is not aware of the meetings.
The woman informed that she does not agree with the maintenance amount requested by the plaintiff. The defendant stated that her income is about 1.2 thousand. euros per month.
The claim was partially satisfied
The district court of the city of Vilnius decided to partially satisfy Erik P.’s claim.
The child’s mother was awarded maintenance for a minor child in the amount of 317 euros paid monthly in periodic payments from the day the lawsuit was filed with the court until the child reaches adulthood.
It was also decided to award maintenance arrears of 9,436 euros in favor of the defendant’s minor child.
The decision in the part regarding the awarding of maintenance in periodic payments shall be executed urgently. Appealing the decision does not stop its execution in this part.
The decision may be appealed to the Vilnius District Court within 30 days of its announcement, by filing the appeal through the Vilnius City District Court.
Tags: divorce couple Vilnius stayed birth child father sued mother
-
