If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In the case of Christiano v. Christiano, a former wife sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court in Fairfield County, which denied her motion for the reinstatement of alimony from defendant former husband.  In law, alimony is based upon the duty of the husband to continue to support a wife whom he has in legal effect abandoned. It defines that duty in terms of money, or property, and decrees specific performance of it; and the state itself has a social and financial interest in the performance of that duty.

The wife was granted a divorce from the husband on the ground of intolerable cruelty. The husband was ordered to pay weekly alimony. Later, the husband filed a motion for modification based on his changed financial situation and alleged misconduct by the wife related to alcohol abuse. The trial court granted the motion and revoked the alimony. In response, the wife filed a motion for reinstatement of alimony, which was denied by the trial court. The wife appealed, and the court reversed. The court determined that the effect of the supplemental judgment was to provide that, after the granting of the motion, the husband was freed from his obligation to make payments but that the trial court still had power, if circumstances changed, to reinstate the alimony. The court ruled that the fact that a town instigated the proceedings and its attorneys represented the wife was no reason why the wife was not entitled to payments of alimony if the facts justified such relief. As to the effect of the wife's alleged misconduct, the court held that the trial court improperly concluded that the wife was required to prove that her reformation was permanent before she was entitled to alimony.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered a new trial. “[The lower court’s] conclusion necessarily involved the conception that the [the wife] was not entitled to alimony until she had established that her reformation was permanent, even though her misbehavior had not been such as would have freed the husband from his duty to furnish support were they still married, and even though her misconduct had ceased” said the court. “Because of this misconception of the foundation upon which the court should have decided the issue and of the right of the town to instigate the proceedings, we cannot sustain the court's ruling denying her relief.”

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: Christiano v. Christiano, 131 Conn. 589, 41 A.2d 779, 1945 Conn. LEXIS 132, 6 A.L.R.2d 853 (Conn. 1945)