Chinese (Simplified) 
Chinese (Traditional) 
English 
French 
Alemão 
Italian 
Japanese 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
4 min read
93 comments
The STJ reaffirmed that the amount of alimony must be set according to the actual income of the person paying alimony and the needs of the child, applying the trinomial of necessity, possibility and proportionality.
O Superior Court of Justice (STJ) published, in September 2025, a decision that reaffirms one of the pillars of family law: the amount of alimony must observe the real income of the payer and child's needs, and not the other parent's standard of living.
The decision reinforces the application of the trinomial necessity, possibility and proportionality, provided for in article 1.694 of the Civil Code, according to which the value of the pension must respect the balance between what is necessary for the support of the person receiving the alimony and what the person providing the alimony can contribute without compromising his own subsistence.
The case analyzed involved a mother who requested pension adjustment claiming increased household expenses and an improved standard of living. The father, however, proved that his income remained stable and that the amount paid already compromised a significant portion of the budget.
-
Brazilian Chamber approves bill that limits land expropriation and changes agrarian reform rules three decades after the original law.
-
With the new law signed by Lula, banks are required to disclose all costs, allow automatic salary portability, and create credit options with lower interest rates.
-
'CPF for Real Estate' starts in 2026 and could change how your property tax is calculated, but the tax authorities deny a tax increase.
-
So, does paying tolls infringe on the right to come and go? Here's what the law clearly states.
The STJ upheld the decision of the lower courts and denied the requested increase, highlighting that alimony should not be used to maintain a standard of living higher than the financial reality of the person responsible for paying the alimony.
What does the legislation say about calculating pensions?
Brazilian legislation establishes that food must be fixed according to the need of the recipient e the possibility of who pays.
O art. 1.694, §1, of the Civil Code provides:
“Alimony must be set in proportion to the needs of the claimant and the resources of the obligated party.”
In practice, this means that the judge must balance the value according to the socioeconomic context of the parties, preventing the pension from being used as instrument of undue enrichment ou punishment for the payer of alimony.
O STJ has consolidated jurisprudence on the subject. In decisions such as REsp 1.355.573/SP and AgInt in REsp 1.985.441/PR, the Court highlighted that the value of food cannot exceed the father's financial capacity, even if the other party has a higher standard of living.
Precedents reinforce balance and proportionality
In recent years, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and state courts have been consolidating decisions that reject disproportionate claims. Among the main precedents:
- STJ – Resp 1.355.573/SP: established that the value of alimony must respect the financial reality of the payer, avoiding excessive burden.
- TJ-SP – Civil Appeal No. 1002349-86.2023.8.26.0004: recognized that the pension cannot be used to cover luxury expenses of the guardian.
- TJ-DF – 0702147-94.2021.8.07.0019: reaffirmed that the obligation ceases when the child becomes financially independent, even if the other parent maintains a higher standard.
These understandings form a coherent line: the value of the pension must provide for the child's support and development, and not be defined based on comparisons between consumption patterns from parents.
What changes in practice
The STJ decision has a direct impact on food review actions.
It reinforces that the father (or mother, when applicable) is not obliged to maintain a standard of living above his financial reality, even if the other parent has a higher income or can offer more comfort. With this understanding, judges now have the authority to:
- Deny unjustified pension increases based solely on luxury or vanity expenses;
- Reduce values when a drop in the payer's income is proven;
- Avoid distortions that transform the pension into a source of financial imbalance between the parties.
The goal is to maintain the duty of support within the limits of reasonableness, ensuring the child has the essentials without overloading one side.
Current context: increase in revision actions
Data collected by state courts show that requests for child support reviews grew by about 20% between 2024 and 2025, driven by the high cost of living and economic instability.
Many of these requests, however, are not based on a proven need of the child, but on attempts to readjust values according to the family's consumption pattern — which the STJ now reinforces is not legally admissible.
The new decision seeks stabilize national understanding and reduce the judicialization of conflicts arising from mistaken interpretations of the real purpose of the pension.
Do me a favor... These comments... 90% of women prefer the guy to use a condom than to have a child, if they had one it was because the guy wanted one without and now they complain about the consequences? Well, children are not for those who earn a starvation wage... didn't do family planning, didn't have a vasectomy or push it dry and think it's bad lol
It's funny that I'm 26 years old and I don't have any children and I don't have any headaches with forums, look at that thing.
Alimony is a mere figurative term, given that most of the “recipients” divert these amounts to invest in themselves.
My aunt owns a salon and hair space, according to her what you hear most are the "worthy" women counting the days until they receive their pension (which should be for their children), to schedule a treatment for their nails, eyebrows and hair, many laugh saying (I have to look pretty), while the right holder (child) receives crumbs of this amount without even being able to ask for something of his desires (ask your father for more!).
These mercenary mothers do not represent the honorable mothers who, in addition to receiving a pension, invest in the future of their six children.
PS: Comment from a father who raised his son alone (has custody of him) and who gave up child support, because 1000 child support for a woman is little, but 1000 for a man is a lot.
Children are not bought in stores.
The responsibility lies with both of them; they should both bear equal values and not live as parasites on each other.
Excellent point, my dear. Unfortunately, I wasn't as lucky as you. When I tried to gain custody of my daughter, her mother bombarded her with psychological pressure. I withdrew the lawsuit because the damage might not be reversible later. I'm still waiting for the day when she won't see a single cent of mine in her (the mother's) account. My daughter will NEVER lack anything, just as she never lacked, because her mother has never contributed anything to this day. Besides covering all the financial expenses, I'm also the one who takes her to doctors, to school, to extracurricular activities, etc.
It will take many years for this reality to become more common in court, and for custody and pension decisions to become more equitable.
The law does not have mechanisms to MONITOR how such amounts are spent, but the PAYER must monitor, gather conclusive evidence and report it in Court, pointing out that the amount is being UNDUELY diverted from its intended purpose and/or request a reduction in alimony, but EVERYTHING must be proven and done intelligently.
The pension should be controlled. The person responsible should receive a card that would only entitle them to food purchases, with no means of exchange. They should pay nothing beyond food. When they separate, the two should have assumed responsibility for doctor/medication, clothes/shoes, leisure activities, school, school supplies, and dentistry. If the person is low-income, seek out the Unified Health System (SUS); children are not exchangeable commodities. Women and men who cannot afford to support a child shouldn't have unprotected sex, or already have a vasectomy if they want to have fun, otherwise, the guy will have an obligation until he's 24. Today, if a daughter had a child, the father would be the one to take care of her—the mother, the father, after all...
Judges and prosecutors should be ashamed of setting a value without researching and taking into account the family's needs and possibilities. This country has a... **** Judiciary