By decision No. 4182/2026 of the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance (Injunction Proceedings Procedure), the Court proceeded with the interim regulation of the relations between spouses living separately and their child, upholding the positions of our client, namely the respondent – father. With the best interests of the minor child as the sole guiding principle, the Court established the framework for the joint and equal exercise of custody and determined the amounts of interim maintenance, both for the child (a highschool student) and for the separated spouse.

The above decision also resolves, inter alia, a procedural issue of concerning the possibility of modifying the initial claim, as set out in the originating application, during oral hearing proceedings and subsequently through the submission of a written memorandum. This arose because the applicant mother, although she had initially requested joint custody (co-parenting) with an alternating residence arrangement in her application, during the oral hearing and later in her written claims changed her position, requesting exclusive custody to be awarded to her. In any case, the Court emphasized that, within the framework of interim relief proceedings, it decides freely and is not bound by the specific claims or their modifications by the parties. Instead, it forms its judgment independently on the basis of what truly serves the best interests of the child, ordering each time the most appropriate interim measures. In light of the above, the Court rejected the applicant mother’s request and ultimately ordered the joint and equal exercise of custody of the minor child, establishing an alternating residence system, as we had consistently supported.

Moreover, of particular interest is the regulation of the critical issue of interim maintenance, where a reduction in the amounts was noted compared to those initially set under the interim order regime. Specifically, from a total of EUR 1,350 in cash (EUR 900 for the child and EUR 450 for the spouse) which the respondent was paying under the interim order, the final decision on interim measures now obliges him to a total payment of EUR 1,020 (EUR 770 for the minor child and EUR 250 for the separated spouse), thereby achieving an overall monthly reduction of EUR 330. The Court also determined the total monthly needs of the minor child, assessed the financial capacities of both parents, and, accepting our relevant objection regarding applicant’s contribution, proceeded to an appropriate allocation of participation by both parents in the child’s maintenance, in which the applicant mother until the issuance of the present decision had not contributed financially.

Finally, with regard to the maintenance of the separated spouse, the Court accepted our objection for reduced maintenance, taking into account and evaluating both the culpable conduct of the applicant in the breakdown of cohabitation, her financial situation, as well as the free provision by the respondent, namely our client, of the family and former marital residence. It should be noted that the opposing party sought, in her petition, the payment of more than double the amount on a monthly basis as child support for herself and the parties’ minor child.

The decision in question is indicative of the position of case law not to recognize luxury expenses as maintenance costs, since such expenses do not serve the actual needs of the recipient but are raised solely because of the increased financial means of the obligor.