[Legal status as at January 2019]

According to art. 140. a person providing another means of subsistence or upbringing who is not obliged or obliged to do so because it would not be possible for the right holder or in other circumstances to get in a timely manner in order to obtain maintenance from the obligated person in a closer or similar sequence, demand a refund from the person who should meet these benefits.

The above regulation grants the person performing the maintenance obligation a kind of "substitute" right to claim reimbursement of benefits from a person who fails to pay maintenance. A "substitute" alien may claim the aforementioned benefit reimbursement by an action brought against a person who abandons the alimony.

An important aspect of the practice is the nature of the claim from the aforementioned art. 140 kro. In case V CZ 6/13, the Supreme Court decided that this claim is of alimony nature, therefore it is not entitled to a cassation complaint. It is worth noting, however, that the above position is not the only one appearing in the doctrine, because on the basis of the Supreme Court decisions in the case of I CKN 1180/00, the Supreme Court classified them as a civil law property claim with returnable character. It is worth noting that in the doctrine of family law, none of the indicated positions is dominant, and therefore the assessment of the nature of the return claim provided for in art. 140 kro each time depends on the judge considering the case.

For the sake of completing, it is worth pointing out that the repayment claim at issue expires after three years.