Belgian Spousal Maintenance After Divorce: Article 301 Explained (2026)

A Belgian divorce can produce a separate claim for spousal maintenance, onderhoudsgeld na echtscheiding in Dutch, pension après divorce in French, governed by article 301 of the old Burgerlijk Wetboek, the Code civil first enacted in 1804 and amended many times since. It is a distinct claim from child support: it exists for a former spouse rather than a child, it is capped in a way child support is not, and it follows its own separate fault rules.

This page covers what article 301 actually caps, how it is indexed, and the three separate ways fault can reduce or bar a claim, a distinction the article draws sharply and that is easy to blur into a single rule. For the divorce procedure itself, see the divorce page; for child support, which runs under a completely different framework with no binding scale at all, see the child support page.

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

What article 301 actually caps

Article 301 sets firm outer limits rather than a formula for arriving at a figure inside them. Paragraph 3 caps the amount at one third of the paying spouse's income. Paragraph 4 caps the duration at the length of the marriage itself, though where the recipient remains in genuine need through no fault of their own once that period ends, an exceptional-circumstances extension is available.

Two further rules apply throughout. Paragraph 6 indexes the amount to the consumer price index, with an adjustment every twelve months. And paragraph 3 also allows a court to make the maintenance degressive, meaning it decreases on a set schedule over time rather than staying flat for the whole period it runs.

None of this amounts to a formula that produces a specific number. A court decides the actual amount, within the one-third ceiling, on the facts of the marriage and the parties' means; article 301 does not entitle a former spouse to any particular figure.

Three separate fault rules, not one

Article 301 treats fault through three distinct mechanisms, and collapsing them into a single blended test misstates the article.

First, paragraph 2 lets a court refuse maintenance entirely where the claimant committed a serious fault, a faute grave, that made continued cohabitation with the other spouse impossible. Refusal on this ground requires that specific finding; it is not triggered by ordinary marital fault generally.

Second, and separately, paragraph 2 also imposes an absolute bar on maintenance where the claimant was convicted of certain Penal Code offences committed against the paying spouse. This is a distinct, narrower ground from the first, resting on a criminal conviction rather than a civil finding of fault.

Third, paragraph 5 allows a court to refuse or reduce maintenance, on different grounds again, where the claimant's own need resulted from a unilateral and unjustified choice on their part, rather than from anything connected to the marriage's breakdown.

These three mechanisms operate independently of each other. A claim can fail under one and succeed under another, and a source that treats them as a single combined fault standard is not describing article 301 correctly.

How this differs from child support

Spousal maintenance and child support are frequently discussed together, but they run under entirely separate frameworks. Article 301 caps spousal maintenance at one third of income and at the length of the marriage, with indexation and a degressive option. Child support under articles 203 and 203bis of the same code has no equivalent cap, no official barème, and no royal decree has ever fixed a binding calculation method for it. A source that applies article 301's one-third logic to child support, or a child-support percentage to spousal maintenance, has the two frameworks mixed up. The full picture on child support, including why no calculator appears on this site for it, is on the child support page.

Cohabitants: no equivalent claim

Article 301 applies to former spouses. It has no counterpart for either kind of unmarried couple Belgian law recognises.

A legal cohabitant, someone who made a formal declaration of legal cohabitation, wettelijke samenwoning, at the commune, ends that cohabitation by a simple unilateral or joint written declaration under article 1476 paragraph 2, with no court needed. Article 1477 then lists the entire default set of rights and obligations between legal cohabitants, and a post-separation maintenance claim of the kind article 301 gives a divorced spouse is not on that list. Article 1478 lets legal cohabitants agree their own terms by a notarial convention, so the statutory default is nothing beyond article 1477 unless the couple opted into something more.

A de facto cohabitant, meaning a couple who never made that declaration, has no statutory framework at all. Titre Vbis of the old Civil Code regulates legal cohabitation only; living together for years, sharing a household, or sharing children creates no separation maintenance entitlement by itself.

Which court hears a maintenance claim

A spousal maintenance claim under article 301 is heard by the familierechtbank, the tribunal de la famille, a specialised section within the rechtbank van eerste aanleg, the tribunal de première instance, established under article 76 paragraph 1 of the Gerechtelijk Wetboek, the Code judiciaire. It has operated in every judicial district since 1 September 2014 and handles the maintenance claim alongside the divorce itself rather than in a separate court.

This page provides general information about a foreign legal system and does not constitute legal advice for an individual case. Spousal maintenance depends on the specific facts of each marriage, a court is not bound by any figure suggested here, and the underlying law changes from time to time. Check the current text on ejustice.just.fgov.be and justice.belgium.be, or consult a lawyer, before acting on anything on this page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a cap on spousal maintenance in Belgium?

Yes, two separate caps. Article 301 paragraph 3 caps the amount at one third of the paying spouse's income, and paragraph 4 caps the duration at the length of the marriage itself, subject to an exceptional-circumstances extension.

How long does spousal maintenance last after a Belgian divorce?

Up to the length of the marriage, under article 301 paragraph 4. Where the recipient remains genuinely in need through no fault of their own once that period ends, an exceptional-circumstances extension is available, but it is not automatic.

Can spousal maintenance be refused because of fault?

Yes, through three separate mechanisms. Paragraph 2 lets a court refuse maintenance entirely for the claimant's serious fault, a faute grave, that made continued cohabitation impossible. Paragraph 2 also imposes an absolute bar where the claimant was convicted of certain Penal Code offences against the paying spouse. Separately, paragraph 5 lets a court refuse or reduce maintenance where the claimant's own unilateral, unjustified choice caused their need.

Is spousal maintenance indexed to inflation?

Yes. Article 301 paragraph 6 indexes the amount to the consumer price index, adjusted every twelve months. A court can also order the amount to decrease over time, on a degressive schedule, under paragraph 3.

How is spousal maintenance different from child support in Belgium?

Child support has no binding official scale at all: no income cap, no barème, and no royal decree has ever fixed a calculation method. Spousal maintenance under article 301 is a different claim with its own statutory caps and fault rules, and the two should not be confused.

Does a legal cohabitant get spousal maintenance if the relationship ends?

Not by default. Article 1477 sets out the full list of default rights and obligations between legal cohabitants, and a post-separation maintenance claim is not on it. Legal cohabitants can agree their own terms through a notarial convention under article 1478, but without one, nothing equivalent to article 301 applies.

What about an unmarried partner who never registered as a legal cohabitant?

Belgian law has no statutory framework at all for that situation. Only legal cohabitation, meaning a formal declaration made at the commune, is regulated. A de facto cohabitant has no separation entitlement under the law regardless of how long the relationship lasted.

Is a court required to award a specific maintenance amount?

No. Article 301 sets a ceiling and a set of grounds on which maintenance can be refused or reduced; it does not entitle a former spouse to any particular figure, and the amount within the one-third cap is for the court to decide on the facts of the case.