扶養義務和免除扶養的相關資訊如下：

 

扶養義務的相關要點：

1. 受扶養權利人需有受扶養之必要：

• 對於直系血親尊親屬（如父母）和配偶，即使有謀生能力，但若無足夠財產維持生活，仍有請求扶養的權利。

• 夫妻間的扶養權利，等級與孩子與父母間相同，無需無謀生能力。

• 其他親屬或家屬除了「不能維持生活」，也需符合「無謀生能力」條件，方可請求扶養；否則，親人對其不會產生扶養義務。

2. 扶養義務人需有扶養能力：

• 若因負擔扶養義務而無法維持自己生活的情況，對於直系血親尊親屬或配偶，最多只能請求法院減輕扶養負擔，但無法完全免除義務。

• 對於其他親屬或家屬，若因扶養義務無法維持自己生活，可以請求法院免除扶養義務。

 

免除扶養的方式：

根據民法第1118條：根據民法第1118條之1的規定：「受扶養權利者有下列情形之一，由負扶養義務者負擔扶養義務顯失公平，負扶養義務者得請求法院減輕其扶養義務：

一、對負扶養義務者、其配偶或直系血親故意為虐待、重大侮辱或其他身體、精神上之不法侵害行為。

二、對負扶養義務者無正當理由未盡扶養義務。

受扶養權利者對負扶養義務者有前項各款行為之一，且情節重大者，法院得免除其扶養義務。

前二項規定，受扶養權利者為負扶養義務者之未成年直系血親卑親屬者，不適用之。」，簡單來說：

1. 減輕扶養義務：負扶養義務者若因負擔扶養義務而不能維持自己生活，可以請求法院減輕扶養義務。相對人為未成年直系血親卑親屬者時，不適用。

2. 免除扶養義務： 受扶養權利者對負扶養義務者有虐待、侮辱、不法侵害行為，或負扶養義務者無正當理由未盡扶養義務，可請求法院免除扶養義務。情節重大時，法院可免除扶養義務。

3. 情節重大：若受扶養權利者對負扶養義務者有虐待等情節，且情節重大，法院可免除扶養義務。

 

司法案例：

1. **臺灣臺北地方法院109年度家調裁字第74號裁定：** 父母達成共識，由父親支付扶養費給成年子女，以緩和扶養義務。父親同意給付1500元，子女同意給付2000元。

2. **臺灣臺北地方法院109年度家親聲字第71號裁定：** 法院酌情考慮父親的過去行為，決定減少扶養責任，並判定每月支付2000元扶養費。

3. **臺灣臺北地方法院110年度家調裁字第2號裁定：** 父子關係中，父親無謀生能力，但考慮到父親仍在壯年，法院同意免除成年子女的扶養義務。

4. 「…聲請人主張相對人爲其父，於聲請人年幼時即與聲請人之母離婚後，未盡扶養義務，聲請人係由母親單獨扶養長大等事實，爲相對人所不爭執，堪信爲真。相對人自承當時年輕不懂事，離家多年不顧妻小，同意免除聲請人之扶養義務。本院審酌相對人無正當理由未盡對聲請人之扶養義務，依現階段情況，如令聲請人扶養相對人，將迫使聲請人現有生活及工作均面臨莫大之困窘，顯非適宜，亦非相對人所願。是兩造合意聲請法院裁定免除聲請人對相對人之扶養義務，於二年內，爲兼顧雙方情況，應無不可，爰裁定如主文（臺灣臺北地方法院109年度家調裁字第71 號裁定）。」

 

以上案例說明了根據法律規定，扶養義務可以根據具體情況減輕或免除。法院會考慮各種因素，包括受扶養者的需求、負扶養者的經濟能力和行為，以及雙方的協議，以達到公平和合理的結果。但請注意，每個案例都是獨特的，具體的判決可能會因情況而有所不同。如有相關法律問題，應諮詢法律專家以獲得適當的法律建議。

 

 

Relevant information regarding maintenance obligations and exemption from maintenance is as follows:

 

Key Points of Maintenance Obligations:

1. Necessity for Maintenance Recipients:

– For direct blood relatives (such as parents) and spouses, even if they have the ability to earn a livelihood, if they lack sufficient property to maintain their livelihood, they still have the right to request maintenance.

– The level of spousal maintenance rights is the same as that between children and parents, without the necessity of lacking the ability to earn a livelihood.

– Other relatives or family members, apart from needing to “lack the ability to maintain a livelihood,” also need to meet the condition of “lacking the ability to earn a livelihood” to request maintenance; otherwise, the family member will not incur maintenance obligations.

2. Capability of Maintenance Obligors:

– If direct blood relatives or esteemed relatives cannot maintain their own livelihoods due to bearing maintenance obligations, they can request the court to alleviate the burden of maintenance. In the case of esteemed relatives who are minors, this provision does not apply.

– For other relatives or family members, if they cannot maintain their own livelihoods due to maintenance obligations, they can request the court to exempt them from maintenance obligations.

 

• Ways to Exempt from Maintenance:

 According to Article 1118 of the Civil Code:

1. Alleviation of Maintenance Obligations:** If the maintenance obligation hinders the ability to maintain one’s own livelihood, direct blood relatives or esteemed relatives can only request the court to alleviate the maintenance burden, but cannot fully exempt themselves from the obligation. This provision does not apply to esteemed relatives who are minors.

2. Exemption from Maintenance Obligations:** Maintenance recipients can request the court to exempt the maintenance obligation if the obligor has intentionally abused, insulted, or unlawfully harmed them, or if the obligor has not fulfilled the maintenance obligation without proper reasons. In cases of significant circumstances, the court can exempt the maintenance obligation.

3. Significant Circumstances:** If the maintenance recipient has experienced abuse or similar actions from the obligor, and the circumstances are severe, the court can exempt the maintenance obligation.

 

Judicial Cases:

1. Taipei District Court Family Dispute Resolution No. 74 of 2020:** Parents reached an agreement where the father pays maintenance to adult children to ease the maintenance obligation. The father agreed to pay 1500 NT dollars, and the children agreed to pay 2000 NT dollars.

2. Taipei District Court Family Conflict Resolution No. 71 of 2020:** The court considered the father’s past behavior and decided to reduce the maintenance responsibility, determining a monthly payment of 2000 NT dollars for maintenance.

3. Taipei District Court Family Dispute Resolution No. 2 of 2021:** In the father-son relationship, the father lacked the ability to earn a livelihood, but since the father was still in his prime years, the court agreed to exempt adult children from maintenance obligations.

4. “…The applicant claims that the respondent is their father, and after divorcing the applicant’s mother when the applicant was young, he did not fulfill his maintenance obligations. The applicant was raised solely by the mother. The respondent does not dispute this fact. The respondent acknowledges that he was young and immature at the time and left the family for many years, neglecting his wife and children. He agrees to exempt the applicant from the maintenance obligation. Considering that the respondent has no justifiable reason for not fulfilling the maintenance obligation to the applicant, and based on the current situation, compelling the applicant to support the respondent will subject the applicant to great difficulties in both life and work, which is not appropriate and is also not desired by the respondent. Therefore, it is suitable to grant the applicant’s request to exempt the maintenance obligation toward the respondent within two years to consider the situation of both parties. The court’s ruling is as stated (Taipei District Court Family Conflict Resolution No. 71 of 2020).”

 

The above cases illustrate how, based on legal provisions, maintenance obligations can be alleviated or exempted according to specific circumstances. The court takes various factors into consideration, including the needs of the maintenance recipient, the economic capacity and behavior of the obligor, and agreements between both parties, to achieve fair and reasonable outcomes. However, it’s important to note that each case is unique, and specific judgments may vary based on circumstances. In the case of legal concerns, it is advisable to consult legal experts for appropriate legal advice.