Article 1:400
in forceMaintenance (alimony) · General provisions
If a person is obliged to provide maintenance to two or more persons and his financial capacity is insufficient to fully provide this to all of them, his children and stepchildren who have not yet reached the age of twenty-one years shall have priority over all other persons entitled to maintenance, and his spouse, his former spouse, his registered partnership partner, his former registered partnership partner, his parents and his children and stepchildren who have reached the age of twenty-one years shall have priority over his children-in-law and his parents-in-law.
Agreements by which the maintenance due under the law is waived, are void.
Indien een persoon verplicht is levensonderhoud te verstrekken aan twee of meer personen en zijn draagkracht onvoldoende is om dit volledig aan allen te verschaffen, hebben zijn kinderen en stiefkinderen die de leeftijd van een en twintig jaren nog niet hebben bereikt voorrang boven alle andere onderhoudsgerechtigden en hebben zijn echtgenoot, zijn vroegere echtgenoot, zijn geregistreerde partner, zijn vroegere geregistreerde partner, zijn ouders en zijn kinderen en stiefkinderen die de leeftijd van een en twintig jaren hebben bereikt voorrang boven zijn behuwdkinderen en zijn schoonouders.
Overeenkomsten waarbij van het volgens de wet verschuldigde levensonderhoud wordt afgezien, zijn nietig.
Decisions of the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) applying this article. Annotations are unofficial translations.
Law of Persons and Family Law. Child support. Maintenance obligation towards an adult child in education? Priority of the maintenance obligation towards a minor child? Article 1:400 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). Article 1:397 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code. Fixed housing costs.
Decision on rechtspraak.nlFamily law. Petition for the modification of spousal and child maintenance established in a divorce agreement (echtscheidingsconvenant), and for the annulment of a non-modification clause as referred to in Article 1:159 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeal failed to observe the devolutive effect of the appeal by not assessing the husband's subsidiary petition (for the setting of child maintenance at nil) after the annulment of the District Court's order regarding spousal maintenance. In the priority rule laid down in Article 1:400, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code, the legislature apparently assumed that the various maintenance obligations are coordinated with each other, taking into account all circumstances of the case, including the priority of child maintenance and the capacity of the person liable for maintenance. Since this coordination could not take place, the priority rule does not justify leaving a reasoned subsidiary petition, as referred to herein, without consideration for lack of interest.
Decision on rechtspraak.nl