No child support; in fact, she will have to shoulder all the blame for the separation. The protagonist of the story is a Roman woman—whose appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court—who, as her husband discovered when the marital crisis erupted, had also married another man in Egypt, where she was spending her holidays. The judges of the sixth civil section of the "Palazzaccio" (Court of Appeal), in an order filed today, upheld the ruling by which the Rome Court of Appeal, following the decision already made in the first instance, charged the woman with separation, rejecting all her requests for assignment of the marital home and the payment of maintenance. In her appeal to the Supreme Court, the woman complained that the lower court judges had failed to fully explain the criteria for preferring one reconstruction of the facts—that relating to the "romantic relationship" with the Egyptian with whom she had signed a marriage contract—rather than the other, provided by her, according to which this wedding document was merely "a safe conduct necessary for safe travel within countries where a woman's personal safety may be at high risk." The Supreme Court rejected the woman's appeal, deeming her arguments inadmissible and agreeing with the lower court's conclusions regarding the validity of the "circumstantial evidence": "The husband discovered after some time the type of life his wife led when she went on holiday to Egypt," reads the order filed today in Cassation, which recalls the appeals court's decision, "and at that point the marital crisis erupted, punctuated by mutual complaints and culminating in the initiation of separation proceedings."
EDITORIAL TEAM
Choose the social channel you want to subscribe to