RULING

On April XX, 20XX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX District Court of Saint-Petersburg in the composition of chairperson judge Ms.XXXXXXXXXXXX

With participation of attorneys at law Ms. XXXXXXXX, Ms. Karina Krasnova, Clerk to the justices Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Having considered in open court session the civil case based on the suit of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX claiming recovery of child support,

HAS ESTABLISHED:

The parties have been officially married since January XX, 19XX, in the wedlock they have daughter XXXXXXXXXXX born on May XX, 19XX.

The plaintiff applied to the court with the suit claiming dissolution of marriage, he agrees to the child’s place of residence to be the place of residence of her mother, to the size of alimony and procedure for child’s support, agrees to divide the jointly acquired property, and to define the procedure for meeting with the child.

In the course of proceedings it has been established that the parties to the case being citizens of Russia, are permanently residing in the USA, they do not object to the fact that in case of marriage dissolution the child’s place of residence shall be the place of residence of her mother.

The plaintiff asks to recover from him child support in favor of the defendant for support of his daughter born on May XX, 19XX at the rate of 1/4 of all his earnings or other income on monthly basis, except for the months when the child will be residing with him. In addition, he thinks it necessary to deliver a judgement on transfer of 50% of alimony to the account opened in favor of his daughter.

The defendant has no claims of her own as regards recovery of child support for her daughter. She asks to terminate the proceeding in case concerning this issue, stating that the claims made by the plaintiff are the claims made against himself, they are not based on the provisions of effective procedural legislation. She does not contest the fact that the child is permanently residing with her and is supported by her, and Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX can participate in the child’s support voluntarily, as he thinks necessary being governed by his inner convictions.

The court finds the application for termination of the proceeding in case concerning this issue subject to satisfaction.

Pursuant to the law, the objective of civil proceedings is correct and timely consideration of civil cases with the purpose to protect the violated and contested rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, being subjects of civil and other legal relations. The court initiated the civil case based on the petition of a person applying for protection of his rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.

Thus on the basis of disposition principle the development of a case in a civil proceeding is connected with violation of rights and interests of a citizen, which fact is not available in this case.

The court finds erroneous the plaintiff’s arguments stating that alimony recovery issue, as well as the requirement to support the child in this case is subject to unconditional consideration pursuant to Art. 24 of the Russian Federation Family Code.

On the assumption of the meaning of the law, the alimony is being recovered in the case when the parents (one of them) fail to meet the child support obligation imposed on them by the law. According to the explanations given by the plaintiff’s representatives, he never rejected his obligation of his daughter support. And the defendant never hindered the plaintiff’s voluntary assistance in support of the daughter living with her in a manner, which the plaintiff considers necessary.

So in this case there is no issue of law, which could have been a ground for instituting court proceeding.

In addition, pursuant to articles 81, 82 of the Russian Federation Family Code, a parent on whom the child lives may claim the recovery of alimony from the other parent. Mr. XXXXXXXXXX does not contest the fact that his minor daughter is residing with her mother, depends on her, and believes, that this situation shall remain unchanged after marriage dissolution. So the plaintiff has applied to the court claiming the protection of his daughter’s rights, while in this situation he is not entitled to do it pursuant to the law.

The court shall terminate the proceedings, if the case is not subject to consideration and resolving by the court according to the civil procedure on the grounds stipulated in par. 1 of the first part of Art. 134 of the Russian Federation Civil Procedure Code, which applies to the given case.

Under the circumstances to terminate the proceeding in case to the extent concerning recovery of alimony from the plaintiff for his daughter.

On the ground of above stated, being governed by Article 220, clause 1, 221 of RF CPC, the court

HAS RESOLVED:

To terminate the proceedings based on the suit of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX claiming recovery of alimony for their daughter XXXXXXXX, born on May XX, 19XX.

The ruling may be appealed against by filing a private complaint.

Judge

Stamp: The copy is true and correct.

Judge signed

Clerk to justices: signed

Seal: XXXXXXXXXXXXX District Court of Saint-Petersburg