The failure to pay a maintenance allowance is not merely an economic issue between ex-spouses or separated parents. Where an obligation has been established by a judge or properly formalized, the breach may also carry criminal significance pursuant to Article 570-bis of the Criminal Code. Understanding this possibility is important both for those who do not receive what is owed and for those who face payment difficulties and fear consequences that go beyond debt recovery.
I want to help you distinguish a simple delay from conduct that may be brought to the attention of the criminal authorities, understand which documents make the debt verifiable, and learn about the civil remedies that can accompany criminal action. The decisive point is not simply that a sum has failed to arrive: what matters is what obligation exists, since when it is owed, for whom it is intended, and what payments actually show.
When Omitted Maintenance May Fall Under Article 570-bis of the Criminal Code
Article 570-bis of the Criminal Code protects family financial obligations arising from separation, divorce, declaration of nullity of marriage, and shared custody of children. The provision refers to the penalties provided for by Article 570 of the Criminal Code and concerns the spouse who fails to pay allowances due after dissolution, cessation of civil effects, or nullity of marriage, or who violates financial obligations connected with separation and shared custody. The text was introduced into the criminal code by Legislative Decree No. 21 of March 1, 2018: you can read the provision in the measure that introduced Article 570-bis of the Criminal Code.
There is no need to invent a new obligation to invoke criminal protection. First, it is necessary to identify a concrete source of the obligation: for example, a presidential or investigating judge's order, a separation or divorce judgment, a decision concerning children, or an agreement that has acquired efficacy according to forms provided by law. The document must make it possible to establish the amount, beneficiary, effective date, and method of payment.
The allowance may concern children or a spouse, but the two situations must not be confused. The contribution intended for children serves to cover their needs for living, education, care, and growth; that in favor of the ex-spouse responds to different prerequisites, fixed in the decision or agreement. For Article 570-bis, what matters is the violation of the financial obligation effectively placed upon the person required to pay, not the informal label the parties use to call the sum.
Children of unmarried parents also receive protection under the constitutionally oriented interpretation of the rule. The Constitutional Court, with judgment No. 189 of 2019, addressed precisely the problem of continuity of protection for financial obligations relating to children born out of wedlock, enhancing the interpretation already affirmed by the Court of Cassation. This reference is especially useful when the couple was never married: the lack of marriage does not in itself render the unpaid contribution arranged for the children irrelevant. You can consult the judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 189 of 2019.
Not Every Missed Payment Automatically Proves a Crime
The debt must be certain and current. If the allowance has been modified by a judge, if it has ceased by a subsequent measure, or if the parties have concluded a formally effective agreement that replaces the previous one, verification starts from the discipline applicable in the contested period. An amount no longer due does not become a crime simply because it appears in a calculation built on conditions that are now outdated.
There is no fixed threshold of months or euros indicated by Article 570-bis. Therefore, it is incorrect to think that the crime automatically begins after a pre-established number of unpaid installments. Even a breach limited in time must be read in its context; likewise, a sequence of omitted payments cannot be dismissed as a mere private dispute if the obligation is clear and the sums remain due.
Partial payment does not always equal fulfillment. If the decision mandates 700 euros per month and 300 euros are paid, it remains to be clarified whether the unpaid part is due, whether there was a valid modification of the obligation, or whether the payment covers different arrears. A bank transfer without a reference purpose, an undocumented cash delivery, or a payment allocated to a different heading may fuel a dispute, but they do not alone allow for the correct reconstruction of the monthly installments.
One cannot unilaterally substitute the allowance with expenses chosen by the person who must pay. Purchasing goods, paying for activities, or sustaining sums in favor of third parties may be useful to the family, but it does not automatically authorize withholding the amount established for maintenance. The Court of Cassation recently specified that the fulfillment of a merely moral or social obligation toward third parties does not, in itself, exclude liability for the omitted allowance provided for by Article 570-bis. This is the principle expressed in Cassation judgment No. 534, deposited on January 8, 2026.
The Impossibility to Pay and the Choice to Request a Modification
An economic difficulty must be addressed before the breach, not turned into a personal decision to suspend or reduce the allowance. Job loss, a significant reduction in income, illness, or new burdens may make it necessary to request a review of the conditions, but until the obligation is modified, the parameter provided by the existing title remains.
Review requires relevant surviving facts. Article 473-bis.29 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a request at any time for the revision of provisions regarding children and financial contributions when justified grounds supervene. However, it is not enough to state that the amount has become burdensome: the request must be linked to a concrete and demonstrable change, comparing it with the situation evaluated when the allowance was fixed.
A request to change the conditions does not itself erase arrears. The judge determines whether and from when the conditions change; payments cannot simply be presumed suspended or independently offset. One particular example concerns ecclesiastical annulment: in judgment No. 26184, deposited on 17 July 2025, the Court of Cassation clarified that annulment does not remove the potential criminal relevance of missed payments before it becomes effective under Italian law. The conduct must be assessed against the obligation existing when it occurred.
Concrete impossibility does not coincide with every difficulty. In criminal proceedings, the economic situation of the obligor and the causes of the failure to pay assume relevance, but they must be reconstructed with verifiable data: available income, work performed or refused, assets, necessary expenses, and initiatives undertaken to adjust the allowance. Simply stating that one has other debts or has incurred voluntary expenses does not, by itself, provide an answer to the problem of the maintenance obligation.
How to Prove Non-Payment and Fulfillment
The title fixing the allowance is the first document. Anyone complaining of omitted maintenance must be able to show the effective decision or agreement from which the right arises. It is useful to accompany this with a simple statement, month by month, reporting the due amount, any expected indexation, payments received, and remaining balance. This avoids summing up installments not yet due or confusing current allowances and arrears.
Bank movements make the fact verifiable. Account statements, transfer receipts, and receipts with a precise reference purpose help establish whether payment has been made and to which monthly installment it refers. For the payer, a bank transfer with a clear indication of the month and title constitutes an important practical protection. For the recipient, account statements and communications between the parties can demonstrate the non-receipt of expected sums.
Cash creates a problem of proof. It is not sufficient for one party to claim to have delivered money by hand, nor for the other to generically deny having received it. A dated, signed receipt referring precisely to the installment may assume relevance; generic declarations, ambiguous messages, and payments for expenses other than the allowance instead require a closer examination of their meaning.
Written communication serves to clarify the breach. A formal request for payment does not replace the title, but it can indicate which installments are disputed, put the obligor in a position to respond, and delimit the dispute. If there are contested payments, it is preferable to immediately indicate dates, amounts, and purposes: a comparison on controllable data is more useful than generic accusations or messages sent during a family dispute.
Criminal Protection and Debt Recovery: Two Different Levels
Criminal action does not replace debt recovery. Reporting a possible violation of Article 570-bis allows facts to be submitted to the competent authority, but it does not automatically transform arrears into available cash. Criminal protection concerns the ascertainment of liability for the contested conduct; the recovery of installments, any expenses, and measures to ensure payments instead follow the civil instruments provided for maintenance credit.
The two protections can proceed together, provided each is used for its purpose. If the immediate need is to obtain the payment of current installments, waiting solely for the outcome of criminal proceedings may leave the economic problem unanswered. If instead conscious and documented omissions emerge, the civil request alone does not prevent evaluating the criminal significance of the conduct as well.
The family decision is already immediately enforceable when it imposes financial contributions with temporary or urgent provisions; moreover, provisions regarding contributions constitute a title for registering a judicial mortgage. The Code of Civil Procedure also provides for the possibility of requesting guarantees or the seizure of assets, real estate, or credits when there is a danger that the obligor will evade payment. These are measures distinct from a complaint and require their own prerequisites. The reference is in Articles 473-bis.36 and following, reported in the text of Legislative Decree No. 149 of 2022 that introduced these provisions.
Direct Payment from Employer or Other Third Party
Direct payment can protect future installments when the obligor periodically receives money from a third party, such as an employer or a pension institution. Article 473-bis.37 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the creditor of the contribution, after formally putting the debtor in default and in the presence of a breach of at least thirty days, to notify the decision or assisted negotiation agreement to the third party, asking them to directly pay the sums due.
The third party pays from the month following notification, according to the mechanism provided by the rule. It is not a shortcut to be used without conditions: a title indicating the measure of the allowance, prior formal notice of default, and a subject who must periodically correspond sums to the debtor are required. If the debtor's credit toward the third party is already attached, the enforcement judge intervenes in the distribution of the sums.
This path does not resolve every situation. It is not useful, for example, if there are no periodic sums due from an identifiable third party or if the main problem concerns the correctness of the fixed amount. In these cases, the request for condition modification, credit guarantees, or ordinary enforcement forms may be more pertinent. The choice does not depend on a single formula: it depends on the title, attachable resources, and immediate objective, i.e., obtaining the current amount, recovering arrears, or both.
What to Clarify Before Taking Action
The priority is to separate facts from interpretations. Keep the decision or agreement, prepare a monthly calculation, and collect documents of actual payments. If you are the obligor and believe the amount is no longer sustainable, do not wait for arrears to increase: revision must be requested with a specific application, not with the autonomous suspension of payments.
Confrontation may be necessary but is not enough on its own. A formal understanding can reduce conflict, but it should not leave amounts, effective dates, and waivers uncertain. When children exist, it is necessary to prevent economic conflict from translating into stable uncertainty regarding their essential expenses. If you need to rebuild concrete possibilities between civil and criminal protection, you can contact me.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a complaint if even a single installment of the allowance is missing?
You can have the conduct evaluated, but a single unpaid allowance does not automatically produce a conviction. Article 570-bis does not indicate a minimum number of unpaid monthly installments; however, the title fixing the obligation, the actual deadline, reasons given for omission, and available evidence count. For immediate recovery of the sum, civil instruments also remain relevant.
If the other parent buys goods for the child, can they stop paying maintenance?
No, they cannot decide that alone. Maintenance must be paid according to what is established by the decision or effective agreement. Expenses sustained directly can assume relevance only if they are foreseen, agreed upon, or correctly imputable to the debt. Purchases made unilaterally do not automatically cancel installments that turn out to be unpaid.
Does job loss automatically suspend the allowance?
No, the obligation is not automatically suspended. A loss or reduction of income can be an important fact to request the revision of conditions, but a formal initiative and a decision modifying the amount or effective date are needed. In the meantime, it is essential to document the economic situation and not limit oneself to informal communications.
How do I prove that the allowance was not paid?
Title and payment movements are needed. Keep the judgment, order, or effective agreement and prepare a schedule of due installments. Account statements, bank slips, receipts, and communications between parties help reconstruct monthly installments. If payments were in cash, a specific receipt can become decisive.
Can I request direct payment from the obligor's employer?
Yes, when legal requirements are met. Pursuant to Article 473-bis.37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, formal notice of default, at least thirty days of breach, and a decision or agreement establishing the allowance are required. The third party must be required to periodically correspond sums to the debtor; notification and communication must follow foreseen forms.