A spouse does not have the right to demand payments in the event of the death of a spouse who is a participant in the SVO, if the marital and family relations were previously actually terminated
On July 22, 1993, S.V. Martynov and V.V. Kolman (Martynova) were married. They had a child, D.S. Martynov.
On September 22, 2022, S.V. Martynov died in the line of duty while participating in the Special Military District.
P.N. Martynova filed a lawsuit against the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Federal State Institution "Military Commissariat of the Volgograd Region," the Federal State Institution "Military Commissariat of the Tver Region," and V.V. Martynova, seeking recognition of the marital relationship between V.V. Martynova and S.V. Martynov as terminated, and recognition of V.V. Martynova's loss of the right to receive a share of the monthly monetary compensation provided for in Part 9 of Article 3 of Federal Law No. 306-FZ of November 7, 2011, "On the Monetary Allowance of Military Personnel and the Provision of Certain Payments to Them", which obligates the Tver Region Military Commissariat to terminate V.V. Martynova's monthly monetary compensation and recognizes P.N. Martynova's right to receive half of the monthly monetary compensation.
Factual basis of the claim:
Family relations between V.V. Martynova and S.V. Martynov effectively ceased more than 20 years ago; V.V. Martynova left Russia in 2001 and, in 2003, together with her son, D.S. Martynov, moved to Germany for permanent residence. She and her son have held German citizenship;
Since 2003, V.V. Martynova and S.V. The Martynovs did not live together, did not share a household, did not support each other financially, did not fulfill joint obligations, and did not own any jointly acquired property. V.V. Martynova was unaware of S.V. Martynov's military service and did not attend his funeral. When S.V. Martynov enlisted in the military, he listed his marital status in all documents except his autobiography as single. He only included his mother, P.N. Martynova, in his family. He only mentioned his wife, V.V. Martynova, in his autobiography, as the marriage was never officially dissolved. There is no information about S.V. Martynov having a spouse in his military unit orders.
Position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation:
1. In determining the family members of a deceased (deceased) service member entitled to these payments, the federal legislator, acting within its discretionary powers, considered, in particular, the intended purpose of these payments, which is to compensate for material losses associated with the loss of the opportunity for these individuals, as members of the service member's family, to receive appropriate support from him, including in the future.
2. The life of spouses should be based on the principles of voluntary marriage, building a family on feelings of mutual love and respect, promoting the well-being and strengthening of the family, and caring for the well-being of all family members. This presupposes a close emotional bond between spouses, their mutual support and assistance, and their care and responsibility to each other and other family members. The absence of such a relationship between spouses may indicate their actual termination.
3. A spouse's right to receive such social support may be terminated if circumstances exist that indicate the actual termination of the family relationship between the spouses, namely, the absence of:
- a close emotional bond, - mutual support and assistance, - care and responsibility to each other and other family members.
4. Prejudice serves as a means of maintaining the consistency of judicial decisions and ensures the principle of legal certainty (Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Resolutions No. 30-P of December 21, 2011, No. 60-P of December 25, 2023, and Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Ruling No. 2528-O of November 6, 2014). The appellate court did not take into account the circumstances established by the final decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Volgograd dated February 5, 2024, which have prejudicial effect.
The Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 16-KG25-37-K4 of January 19, 2026.