“More uxoria” or the loss of the compensatory pension when rebuilding your life 2026

For some years now, there has been an increasing trend on the part of Courts and Tribunals to rule on the end of the compensatory pension for cohabitation “more uxorio”, that is, for marital cohabitation with a partner. This has given rise to unfair situations due to the repeal of an acquired right based on compensation for economic imbalances in the previous marriage.

The normal thing is that this type of pension is provided during a long marriage, or women who have collaborated in their husband's work so that he could advance professionally and who, due to all of the above, have not been able to develop their own professional career. It is in these cases when a Court determines the existence of an imbalance for which it must receive a monthly amount as compensation. However, we see that, more frequently, many women who receive this pension, by rebuilding their life with another person, have this acquired right taken away.

Amazon Essentials by Sofia Grainge - Summer 2026 Promotion

The compensatory pension covers an imbalance prior to the new life

The situation regarding the termination of the compensatory pension is aggravated if we consider that numerous sentences have been issued in which this termination has derived not from the real and continuous cohabitation of a woman with her new partner, but as simple habitual cohabitation. This occurs because what initially presupposes the cohabitation of two people in the same home is interpreted by our courts in a much broader way. All of the above causes unfair situations in which a mere report from a private detective proving that the woman spent several nights at her partner's home, or vice versa, has made it possible for her to lose her right. It is understandable that, faced with this situation, many women feel defenseless and with their own fear that arises about the dilemma that arises from to what extent it is fair, or not, that their new partner has to alleviate the imbalance derived from a previous marriage.

This practice obviously has sexist connotations simply by assuming that what the husband paid, now has to be paid by the new boyfriend when, in reality, what should be considered is where the right to receive the compensatory pension comes from, since it arises as a need to alleviate an imbalance caused by a society in which many women gave up their studies, and/or professions, in order to take care of their marriage and their family.

Finally, it should be noted that there have been cases in which one of the parties has been unjustly enriched in the granting of compensatory pensions, and logically, each scenario is different from the previous one and all must be studied by a specialist in the matter.

Source: Aba Lawyers