Supreme Court: Unfinished Divorce Negates the Right to Payments to a Common-Law Wife After the Death of a Soldier

The loss of a loved one in war is accompanied not only by emotional pain but also by complex legal difficulties in fighting for the right to social guarantees. In case No. 384/33/25, the Supreme Court reviewed a dispute regarding the receipt of social guarantees after the death of a serviceman and reminded that for the appointment of assistance, not only actual family relationships matter but also compliance with the requirements established by law.

The Supreme Court, composed of judges of the Third Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, answered the question: can a woman be considered a family member of a deceased soldier if at the beginning of the relationship she was still officially married to another man?

The right to a one-time financial aid after the death of a serviceman directly depends on confirming the status of a family member. According to Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine, social protection of servicemen and their families is a constitutional duty of the state.

Between Marriage and the Front

The plaintiff claimed that since July 2021 she lived with the serviceman as one family in Mariupol. The couple ran a joint household, the man supported her and two children from a previous marriage, they planned to marry and even bought a wedding ring. After the defender’s death in May 2022, the plaintiff applied to the Ministry of Defense for the one-time financial aid but was refused due to lack of evidence of cohabitation.

The Principle of Monogamy

The key circumstance established by the appellate court and confirmed by the Supreme Court was the fact that the plaintiff was in a registered marriage with another man until March 12, 2022.

The Supreme Court reminded that according to the Family Code of Ukraine, a man and a woman cannot simultaneously be in multiple marital relationships. Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine provides for the possibility of establishing the fact of living as a family only if the persons are not in any other marriage.

Thus, the existence of a valid marriage with another person excludes the possibility of legal recognition of a "common-law marriage" for the same period. This, in turn, may affect the person's right to claim social guarantees and one-time financial aid after the death of a serviceman.

Standards of Proof

The plaintiff provided the court with screenshots from Instagram and Viber, bank statements about money transfers, and joint photos. However, the court found this evidence insufficient for the period after the divorce (from March to May 2022).

According to Article 3 of the Family Code of Ukraine, a family consists of persons who not only live together but are connected by a common household and have mutual rights and obligations.

The Supreme Court noted that money transfers may indicate close relationships or support but are not indisputable proof of a joint budget and household.

Joint photos and correspondence in messengers reflect the presence of feelings and communication but do not confirm the creation of a family as a legal union.

The court took into account that the serviceman was on duty but pointed out that being in close relationships and providing support alone do not indicate the presence of established relations typical of spouses.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court canceled the decision of the first instance and confirmed the legality of the Ministry of Defense’s refusal to pay financial aid to the plaintiff.

Until the previous marriage is legally dissolved and the decision comes into force, no new relationships can be recognized as a family under the law. An unfinished divorce is a legal safeguard against any claims to family member status in new relationships. Even war and shared children do not change the imperative requirement of Article 25 of the Family Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court reminded that the task of civil proceedings is not merely sympathy but a fair resolution of cases based on the rule of law and legality. The refusal of the claim was the result of non-compliance with the basic principle of monogamy and insufficient evidence of running a joint household in the short period after the official divorce.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.