A soldier died at the front, and his civilian wife was denied family member status: what the Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court's Civil Cassation Court annulled the appellate court's decision that denied the woman the establishment of the fact of living as one family with the deceased serviceman due to failure to prove five years of cohabitation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the dispute over the right to a one-time monetary allowance for the family of the deceased serviceman is not an inheritance matter, and therefore the requirements of Article 1264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding five years of living as one family cannot be automatically applied.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the woman's cassation appeal, who requested to establish the fact of living as one family with the deceased serviceman without marriage registration. The court annulled the Kyiv Court of Appeal's ruling and sent the case for a new trial.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff stated that she had lived as one family with the man for about six years, who after the start of the full-scale invasion was mobilized into the Armed Forces of Ukraine and died during a combat mission. After his death, she applied to the court to establish the fact of living as one family without marriage. According to her, this was necessary to exercise the right to a one-time monetary allowance provided for family members of deceased servicemen.

Initially, the Bila Tserkva City District Court denied the claim, considering the evidence insufficient. The appellate court initially closed the proceedings, concluding that the dispute belonged to administrative jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court annulled this decision and indicated that the case should be considered under civil procedure rules.

During further consideration, the appellate court recognized that there were relations between the plaintiff and the deceased serviceman that had family characteristics: shared household, mutual care, and some joint budget. At the same time, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove living as one family for at least five years before the husband's death, so there were no grounds to satisfy the claim.

Evidence examined

The case materials contained information from the military unit indicating that the deceased serviceman referred to the plaintiff as his civilian wife. Bank statements confirming expenses for the shared household and mobile communication payments, medical declarations where the parties named each other as trusted persons, receipts and other documents regarding the purchase of goods, as well as witness testimonies, were also provided.

The courts paid special attention to the parties' correspondence in the Viber messenger. Earlier, the Supreme Court in the same case had already noted that messages in messengers are electronic evidence, and submitting them in paper form does not in itself make such evidence inadmissible. The cassation court also pointed out that documents obtained from the military unit upon a lawyer's request cannot be automatically rejected as inadmissible evidence solely because the relevant officials were not questioned as witnesses.

Supreme Court's position

Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court incorrectly determined the nature of the disputed legal relations.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff applied to the court not to acquire inheritance rights after the serviceman's death, but to confirm her status as a person who considers herself a family member, in order to further exercise the right to a one-time monetary allowance provided by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168 and Article 16-1 of the Law "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families."

The court emphasized that Article 1264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regulates inheritance relations and defines the conditions for acquiring inheritance rights in the fourth order. Therefore, the requirement of living as one family for at least five years before the opening of inheritance applies specifically in inheritance disputes.

Since in this case the plaintiff did not claim inheritance rights, the appellate court mistakenly based its decision on criteria intended for inheritance relations. The Supreme Court stressed that the dispute regarding the possibility of further receiving a one-time monetary allowance is not an inheritance matter, and therefore the application of Article 1264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine in this case is unfounded.

Moreover, the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court noted that Article 315 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides for the possibility of establishing the fact of living as one family of a man and a woman without marriage, does not contain requirements regarding the minimum duration of such relations.

What the court focused on

The Supreme Court reminded that when deciding on establishing the fact of living as one family without marriage registration, the court must evaluate the entire body of evidence. What matters are not separate formal signs but the actual existence of family relations: cohabitation, joint household management, presence of a shared household, mutual rights and obligations, mutual support and care.

At the same time, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the mere fact of registering residence at the same address is not decisive evidence of the existence of a de facto marriage. Likewise, photographs or witness testimonies alone may be insufficient without other evidence confirming the reality of family relations.

What the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court decided

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly applied substantive law norms and did not take into account previous instructions of the cassation instance regarding the evaluation of evidence and the legal nature of the dispute. At the same time, the Civil Cassation Court did not establish whether the plaintiff proved the fact of living as one family with the deceased serviceman, since the evaluation of evidence and establishment of factual circumstances fall within the jurisdiction of courts of fact.

As a result, the cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the Kyiv Court of Appeal's ruling dated September 22, 2025, was annulled, and case No. 357/7533/22 was sent for a new trial to the appellate court.

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.