Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
The STJ reaffirmed that the amount of child support should be set according to the real income of the provider and the needs of the child, applying the trinomial necessity, possibility, and proportionality.
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) published, in September 2025, a decision that reaffirms one of the pillars of family law: the amount of child support must consider the real income of the provider and the needs of the child, and not the standard of living of the other parent.
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 amount of support must respect the balance between what is necessary for the sustenance of the recipient and what is possible for the provider to contribute without compromising their own subsistence.
The case analyzed involved a mother who requested a readjustment of the support 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 part of his budget.
-
With the arrival of Law 11.788, internships are now recognized as professional experience.
-
The Brazilian Civil Code states that a property owner has the right to cut the roots of a neighbor’s tree that invade their land, as long as it does not harm the tree itself. The owner must notify the neighbor before taking such action.
-
Engineer is sentenced to repay R$ 148 thousand after holding public positions in three municipalities in Rondônia with incompatible schedules, and the decision is upheld by the Court of Justice.
-
Chamber approves project that creates mandatory Life Insurance for police officers, firefighters, guards, and traffic agents.
The STJ upheld the decision of the lower courts and denied the requested increase, emphasizing that child support should not be used to maintain a standard of living higher than the financial reality of the person responsible for paying the support.
What does the legislation say about the calculation of support
Brazilian legislation establishes that support must be set according to the needs of the recipient and the ability of the payer.
The art. 1,694, §1 of the Civil Code states:
“Support must be fixed in proportion to the needs of the claimant and the resources of the obligated person.”
In practice, this means that the judge must balance the amount according to the socioeconomic context of the parties, avoiding that the support is used as an instrument of undue enrichment or punishment to the provider.
The STJ has established jurisprudence on the subject. In decisions such as REsp 1,355,573/SP and AgInt in REsp 1,985,441/PR, the Court emphasized that the amount of support cannot exceed the financial capacity of the father, even if the other party has a higher standard of living.
Precedents reinforce balance and proportionality
In recent years, the STJ and state courts have been consolidating decisions that dismiss disproportionate requests. Among the main precedents:
- STJ – REsp 1,355,573/SP: established that the amount of support must respect the financial reality of the provider, avoiding excessive burdens.
- TJ-SP – Civil Appeal No. 1002349-86.2023.8.26.0004: recognized that support 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 achieves financial independence, even if the other parent maintains a higher standard.
These understandings form a coherent line: the amount of support must meet the sustenance and development of the child, and not be defined based on comparisons between the consumption standards of the parents.
What changes in practice
The STJ’s decision has a direct impact on food revision actions.
It reinforces that the father (or mother, when applicable) is not obligated to sustain a standard of living above their financial reality, even if the other parent has a higher income or the means to provide more comfort. With this understanding, judges now have support to:
- Reject unjustified increases in support based solely on luxury or vanity expenses;
- Reduce amounts when a decrease in the provider’s income is proven;
- Avoid distortions that turn support into a source of financial imbalance between the parties.
The goal is to maintain the duty of sustenance within reasonable limits, ensuring the essentials for the child without overburdening one side.
Current context: increase in revision actions
Data collected by state courts show that requests for child support revision grew by about 20% between 2024 and 2025, driven by the rising cost of living and economic instability.
Many of these requests, however, are not based on proven needs of the child, but on attempts to readjust amounts according to the family’s consumption standard — which the STJ now reinforces is not legally acceptable.
The new decision seeks to stabilize national understanding and reduce the judicialization of conflicts arising from misinterpretations of the true purpose of support.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!