| Summary: | H.________, a woman from [...], was sufficient against V.________, a man from [...], a lawsuit for divorce.
In a preliminary order dated January 15, 2020, the Civil Court of Lausanne ordered that H.________ may continue to live in the common house until the divorce becomes final.
V.________ appealed against this order.
The Cantonal Court of Vaud dismissed the appeal.
It noted that the preliminary order is in the interests of the couple's children.
More detailed summary:
H.________ and V.________ have been married for 20 years and have two children together. In January 2020, H.________ filed for divorce. As a result, V._______ filed a lawsuit in which he requested that H.________ must leave the common house.
The Civil Court of Lausanne decided in a preliminary order dated January 15, 2020 that H.________ may continue to live in the common house until the divorce becomes final. V.________ appealed against this order.
The Cantonal Court of Vaud dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the preliminary order is in the interests of the couple's children. The children are still small and need the support of both parents. The court ruled that it is best for the children if they can continue to live in their usual environment.
Comment:
The verdict of the Cantonal Court of Vaud is an important signal for the equal rights of women and men in Switzerland. The court ruled that the interests of the children take precedence, even if the mother filed for divorce. |