The judgment of the Supreme Court of August 18, 2020 in the case with reference number II CSK 12/20 was issued as a result of a cassation appeal by the defendant, the child’s father, against the judgment of the court of second instance. The claimant, the child’s mother, bore the maintenance burden in relation to her child not only to the extent that she was obliged to do so, but also to the extent that the defendant should have paid for the child. The court of second instance increased the amount awarded to the plaintiff for the claim provided for in Art. 140 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, i.e. providing another person with means of subsistence or upbringing, despite the lack of such an obligation towards him or in the event of such an obligation arising due to excessive difficulties in collecting these benefits from the person who is first obliged. This amount was increased to PLN 262,556.
The Supreme Court recalled its jurisprudence to date, according to which a cassation appeal is inadmissible in the context of a claim under Art. 140 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, regardless of the value of the subject of the appeal. Therefore, the fact that the value of the claim amounted to PLN 262,556 was not relevant in this case.
The court adopted the interpretation that although the recourse claim under Art. 140 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code is not a claim for maintenance, but it belongs to the scope of maintenance cases within the meaning of Art. 398(2) § 2 point 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the child’s mother bore the maintenance burden beyond her own obligation and sought to award the child’s father the costs of the maintenance burden he should have borne. Therefore, the cassation appeal in this respect is inadmissible and as such was rejected by the Supreme Court.