Ehegattenunterhalt: Spousal Maintenance in Austria During Marriage and After Divorce

Ehegattenunterhalt, maintenance between spouses, is not one claim under Austrian law but two. A different provision applies while a marriage is intact than applies once a divorce has been granted, and the two provisions ask different questions.

During marriage, § 94 ABGB looks at ability and at the couple's shared standard of living. After divorce, §§ 66 to 68 EheG look at something else entirely: who was at fault for the marriage ending. That single shift, from ability to fault, is the hinge this page works through.

Information last verified on 22 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Austrian law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

Maintenance during marriage: § 94 ABGB

§ 94 ABGB requires both spouses to contribute, according to their abilities and in line with how they have arranged their married life together, to needs appropriate to their standard of living. It does not single out one spouse as the payer and the other as the recipient. It describes a shared duty first.

The provision then addresses the spouse who runs the household. That spouse is treated as already fulfilling their own contribution duty through that work, and has a maintenance claim against the other spouse, with each spouse's own income taken into account. Under § 94(2) ABGB, this claim continues for a time after the couple stops sharing a household, unless relying on it would amount to an abuse of the right. A spouse also has a claim under § 94(2) to the extent they are simply unable to make their own contribution under § 94(1).

§ 94(3) ABGB adds a practical mechanic: even while the couple still shares a household, the maintenance-entitled spouse can demand that some or all of the support be paid in money rather than in kind. The underlying maintenance claim itself cannot be waived in advance.

Nowhere in § 94 ABGB does a percentage appear. The statute sets a standard, ability and marital standard of living, and leaves the arithmetic to the courts on a case-by-case basis.

That has not stopped a percentage from circulating in practice. A commonly cited convention puts the reference value at roughly 33% of the earning spouse's net income, and a second, competing convention puts it at roughly 40% of the couple's combined income minus the claimant's own income. Both numbers show up repeatedly in secondary, practitioner-facing sources on Ehegattenunterhalt, but this page could not confirm either one against a current OGH Rechtssatz stating that exact figure with the same clarity that the child-maintenance percentages carry. Treat both numbers as practice orientation a court might use as a starting point, not as a statutory entitlement.

A worked illustration shows why the hedge matters. Take a couple where one spouse earns €4,000 net per month and the other, who runs the household, has no income of their own. Applying the "33% of the earner's income" convention would suggest a reference figure of about €1,320 per month. Applying the "40% of combined income minus the claimant's own" convention, on the same €4,000 combined income, would suggest about €1,600.

The two conventions produce different numbers from the same facts, which is exactly why courts treat them as orientation and weigh the couple's actual standard of living, needs, and each spouse's own ability to contribute, rather than mechanically applying either formula.

Because § 94 ABGB is an ability-based claim, it can shrink or grow as circumstances change. A spouse who takes a job, loses one, or whose expenses change can see the claim reassessed. It is not fixed for the life of the marriage.

Maintenance after divorce: fault decides everything under §§ 66 to 68 EheG

Once a marriage ends in divorce, § 94 ABGB stops applying and a different set of rules takes over. §§ 66 to 68 EheG govern maintenance after divorce, and unlike § 94 ABGB, they are built entirely around fault.

§ 66 EheG puts the full duty on the spouse found solely or mainly at fault for the marriage's breakdown. That spouse must provide the other spouse with maintenance appropriate to the couple's standard of living, to the extent the other spouse's own income from assets and from work that can reasonably be expected of them does not already cover it.

§ 67 EheG then tempers that duty with equity. A court can reduce the § 66 obligation where paying it in full would jeopardize the paying spouse's own adequate maintenance, and the needs of the paying spouse's other dependants are also weighed in that balance.

§ 68 EheG covers the middle case: both spouses share fault for the breakdown, but neither is found predominantly responsible. There, a spouse who cannot support themselves may be awarded an equitable contribution toward maintenance, a narrower, potentially time-limited entitlement compared to the full maintenance available under § 66.

A spouse who is themselves found solely or mainly at fault has, as a rule, no claim under either § 66 or § 68. That is the sharp edge of the fault system: the outcome of the maintenance question and the outcome of the fault question are tied directly together.

Fault itself is usually established through how the divorce is obtained. § 49 EheG lets a spouse seek a fault-based divorce (Verschuldensscheidung) where the other's serious marital misconduct has irretrievably damaged the marriage. §§ 55 and 55a EheG offer no-fault routes after a period of separation, but even a no-fault divorce decree does not by itself resolve who bears fault for post-divorce maintenance purposes. Under § 55a EheG, a consensual divorce requires a written settlement that itself typically addresses maintenance and, in practice, spouses commonly settle the maintenance question by agreement rather than litigating fault.

Unlike Germany, where post-divorce spousal maintenance no longer turns on fault, Austria has kept the Verschuldensprinzip as the organizing principle for this specific claim. A rule of thumb that might apply to a German case does not carry over to an Austrian one, and general online advice written for a German audience should not be relied on here.

That said, the fault link is not permanently settled policy. Austria's Justice Ministry told the Bundesrat in February 2026 that the current government program includes a reform of divorce law and a reworked post-divorce maintenance regime independent of fault, and that a working group of academics and practitioners is examining comparative European models. The Ministry was explicit that reform "cannot be rushed" and that no timeline has been set. No draft bill existed as of that statement, so §§ 66 to 68 EheG remain the operative law and should not be treated as likely to change on any particular schedule.

How spousal maintenance interacts with child maintenance

A separating or divorcing couple with children is often dealing with two maintenance claims at once: spousal maintenance under § 94 ABGB or §§ 66 to 68 EheG, and child maintenance under § 231 ABGB. These are legally separate claims, with separate rules and separate percentages, and one does not automatically take priority over the other in the statute.

In practice, though, both claims draw on the same paying spouse's income, and that income is finite. A court assessing a spousal maintenance claim will typically take into account what the same spouse already pays in child maintenance, since that is a real, ongoing deduction from disposable income. The reverse is also true when a child maintenance amount is being assessed.

This is one reason the specific percentage conventions discussed above for § 94 ABGB should be read as a starting orientation rather than a final number. A household with children, existing child maintenance obligations, or other dependants will typically see those factors weighed alongside the spousal claim, not ignored in favor of a flat percentage.

Where a paying spouse's income is limited enough that both claims cannot realistically be met in full, courts look at the concrete facts of the household rather than applying either maintenance calculation in isolation. Getting this balance right in a contested case is exactly the kind of determination that benefits from advice specific to the couple's numbers, not a general formula.