It had been recently held by the Supreme Court that automatic increases in child support is not unconstitutional by relying on Article 38(2) on the Parents and Children Relations Laws which makes available for the automatic increase of 10% in child support every two years(24 months). However as was the case in the present matter adjudicated before the Supreme Court, the person who is liable to pay such child support may file an application since as stated by the said Article “The Court may, following an application made by the person liable to provide child support, order that this automatic increase shall not apply and/or that the increase is restricted. In case that such an application is made, the obligation to pay any increased amount is postponed.”
In brief the majority of the Supreme Court held as follows:
(i) Article 38(2) in no way predetermines legal rights;
(ii) The automatic increase shall only take place provided that the court has already issued a child support order;
(iii) Court has the authority to amend the child support order or even to terminate same in case an application is made by either party showing for example a change in the circumstances and
(iv)An application can be made by the person affected for the automatic increase to be amended or cancelled hence it does not violate Article 30(2) of the Constitution.
The minority had accepted the arguments which had been presented by the ex-husband namely that Article 38(2) is unconstitutional since the condition of imposing an automatic increase every 24 months is not imposed by the Court rather by the legislature.