Section 73 of the Austrian Marriage Act limits post-divorce maintenance only under specific conditions. If the person entitled to maintenance is in need as a result of sittliches Verschulden, the statutory consequence is limited to necessary maintenance. A need for additional support caused by gross fault does not create an entitlement to increased maintenance.
The provision does not impose an automatic reduction because a person is unemployed, has entered a new relationship or has no available assets. The key issue is whether legally relevant fault caused the need or caused the additional need. That connection must be reviewed against the individual facts.
This article explains the narrow test under section 73 and the meaning of necessary maintenance. It shows which facts should be clarified before a reduction is considered and which documents support the review. Child maintenance and ordinary assessment of new income follow separate rules.
What is the first question under section 73?
The short check separates need, additional need and the relevant facts.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Which situation should be reviewed?
Choose the starting position closest to your case. The orientation does not replace a legal review of the complete maintenance relationship.
Overview of all answers.
Make the cause of need traceable
Place the alleged conduct on a timeline and compare it with income, assets and necessary expenses. The concrete link between conduct and need must be reviewed before section 73 can be used as the legal standard.
Separate necessary need from additional need
List regular necessary expenses separately from costs said to have arisen through specific conduct. The next question is whether the additional need was caused by gross fault as required by section 73(2).
Avoid a blanket conclusion
Unemployment, a new relationship or a lack of assets do not answer the section 73 question by themselves. Record which specific fact is said to have caused the need or additional need and which evidence supports that statement.
What does section 73 regulate in maintenance cases?
Section 73(1) of the Austrian Marriage Act sets out a specific consequence for a person entitled to maintenance who is in need as a result of sittliches Verschulden. In that situation the statute limits the claim to necessary maintenance. The provision therefore requires an established cause of need. It is not a general judgment about a person’s lifestyle.
Section 73(2) addresses a different situation. Additional need caused by gross fault of the person entitled does not create an entitlement to increased maintenance. The review must therefore identify whether the issue concerns the creation of overall need or additional expenses. Those questions should remain separate.
When is conduct connected to financial need?
Sittliches Verschulden is the statutory criterion used by section 73. Application of the provision cannot rest on a general description of conduct as blameworthy. The concrete conduct and the way in which it contributed to the financial need must be identified.
Timing, duration and economic effect are important. The alleged cause must fit the financial development. A party seeking a restriction should state which facts are meant to connect conduct with need. The person claiming maintenance can set out the development of income, assets and necessary expenses in response.
The review remains case-specific. Financial difficulty can have many causes. The wording of section 73 does not support a shortcut from one circumstance directly to the statutory consequence.
What does the limit to necessary maintenance mean?
Section 73 sets out neither a fixed amount nor a percentage for necessary maintenance. The term describes a statutory limit on the scope of maintenance. The concrete assessment must consider necessary living expenses, the claimant’s own means and the financial ability of the person obliged to pay.
Necessary maintenance must be distinguished from increased maintenance. Under subsection 1 the claim is limited to what is necessary when the statutory fault criterion caused the need. Under subsection 2 an additional need is excluded from increased maintenance when gross fault of the person entitled caused that additional need.
A calculation based on the word necessary alone would be incomplete. Expenses must first be classified. Regular necessary costs, the claimant’s own means and alleged additional need belong in separate positions. The legal consequence can then be considered on a clear factual basis.
Are unemployment or a new relationship enough by themselves?
Unemployment alone does not automatically lead to necessary maintenance under section 73. A new relationship alone does not establish the consequence either. The mere fact that no available assets exist also does not replace the required review of fault and causation.
These circumstances can still matter in a maintenance assessment. The correct legal question must then be identified. Earning capacity may matter where income has changed. Actual support and cost sharing may matter in a new household. Assets and liabilities may matter on the need and ability-to-pay sides. The existing article on a new partnership and post-divorce maintenance approaches that distinction from another angle.
Section 73 requires a concrete link between the alleged conduct and the need or additional need. Naming only a life circumstance leaves that decisive question unanswered.
Which documents support the individual review?
A reliable review needs a chronological and financial account. Relevant documents include the maintenance order or settlement, the development of income and assets, necessary expenses and the point at which need or additional need is said to have arisen.
If an employment decision is said to be the cause, an employment agreement, working-time changes, payslips and the reasons for the change may help. In a new relationship the actual household and cost allocation must be clarified. For asset questions bank records, ownership documents and liabilities may be relevant. These documents first establish facts. Legal assessment follows.
Arrange the documents in a timeline. Mark the alleged starting point, the first financial effect and later changes. The related article on a voluntary reduction of working hours shows why an income change requires its own assessment and does not automatically fall under section 73.
What should be organised before a reduction?
Before considering a reduction, state the alleged cause in one clear sentence. Then record the facts, financial development and requested legal consequence separately. This makes it possible to see whether the issue concerns overall need or a particular additional expense.
An existing settlement or maintenance order belongs in the review. Its wording can define the starting position. Changes in living circumstances must be assigned to dates. The article on settlement, waiver and later change explains why the exact agreement and its scope for later change should be read first.
If the cause remains unclear, record the open factual question. A premature reduction can attach the wrong legal consequence to an unexamined circumstance.
Which consequence matches the starting position?
Section 73 distinguishes need from additional need.
| Starting position | Statutory question | First documents | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Need | The person is in need as a result of sittliches Verschulden. | Is there a concrete link between conduct and need? Section 73(1) then limits the claim to necessary maintenance. | Timeline, income, assets and necessary expenses |
| Additional need | Additional costs are said to have arisen through gross fault. | Did the additional need arise and was it caused by gross fault? Section 73(2) gives no entitlement to increased maintenance for it. | Invoices, date of occurrence, cause and payment records |
| Life circumstance alone | Unemployment, a new relationship or lack of assets is mentioned. | That fact alone does not satisfy section 73. The proper legal question and concrete cause must be identified. | Employment and household records, asset overview, maintenance order |
The table explains the statutory framework. It does not establish a particular need or maintenance amount.
Four steps before applying section 73
A clear order prevents different maintenance questions from being merged.
Secure the legal basis
Arrange the maintenance order, settlement and payment history in full.
Describe the cause
Record the conduct, timing and alleged financial effect in a timeline.
Separate the need
Distinguish necessary living expenses from alleged additional need.
Compare the evidence
Match income, assets, expenses and causation with the available documents.
For the preparation: Keep the alleged cause, its timing and the financial development separate. List necessary expenses and additional need in different sections. This makes clear which point concerns section 73(1) and which point concerns section 73(2).
Subscribe to legal updates:
BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews provide new articles and legal information from the firm. Subscribe to the newsletter
Self-caused need and necessary maintenance
Does unemployment automatically reduce maintenance under section 73?
No. Unemployment alone does not satisfy the statutory test. The review must establish whether legally relevant fault caused the need.
What is meant by necessary maintenance?
Section 73 gives no fixed amount or percentage. Necessary need must be assessed through the concrete expenses, own means and financial circumstances.
Is a new relationship enough for section 73?
A new relationship alone is not enough. Actual support, the claimant’s own need and income and the applicable legal basis must be reviewed.
What applies to additional need caused by gross fault?
Under section 73(2), additional need caused by gross fault of the person entitled does not create an entitlement to increased maintenance. The additional need must be identified concretely.
Which documents should be collected?
Useful documents include the maintenance order or settlement, income and asset records, evidence of necessary expenses and a timeline of the alleged cause and its financial effects.
Related topics
Post-divorce maintenance under section 68a EheG and a new partnership
Place actual support and need in the context of a new partnership.
Voluntary reduction of working hours and imputation
Assess an income change and realistic earning opportunities separately.
Post-divorce maintenance: settlement, waiver and later change
Read the agreement, order and possible later change together.