Marital infidelity is a problem that afflicts many couples. Dr. Di Bari Diego will be able to help you by collecting certain and irrefutable evidence. Investigations legally valid for separations and divorces, accompanied by photographic and film evidence, aimed at guaranteeing the customer irrefutable evidence.
Dr. Diego DI BARI, following the information acquired from the client, and using consolidated investigative techniques, is able to obtain overwhelming evidence proving infidelity on the part of his spouse and offer judicial investigations for separations and divorces. The investigative institute uses state-of-the-art technologies and carries out investigations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including holidays. At the end of the investigation, the customer will receive a complete dossier, complete with images and videos. All the evidence collected is valid in court. The philosophy of the Investigative Institute puts discretion and confidentiality first, paying particular attention to respecting the law on privacy.
Often even an unfounded doubt can ruin a relationship and can make you spend some terrible days between bad thoughts. At this point it would be better to contact a private detective, to ensure that this doubt is clarified. Dr. Diego DI BARI is able to give you an answer, the infidelity of your spouse can be easily verified by specialized personnel with stalking and stalking strategies.
FURTHER INFORMATION
ABANDONMENT OF THE FAMILY HOME - CHARGING FOR SEPARATION - LIMITS (CC, ARTICLES 143, 151, 2697 AND 2729)
Speaking of marital infidelity, the separation of the spouses or the abandonment of the family home can result.
The violation of matrimonial obligations is not relevant for the purposes of the debit if it has not caused the intolerability of cohabitation. Therefore, the statement of objection in the separation, also with regard to the violation of the obligation of fidelity, it requires proof that the irreversible marital crisis is related to the conscious and voluntary behavior of the spouse, and that there is a precise causal link between this behavior and the intolerability of cohabitation: failure to obtain proof that such behavior is an efficient cause of intolerability therefore excludes the pronouncement of charge.
Court of Cassation, Civil Section I, sentence 11 August 2011 n. 17193 – Pres. Luccioli; Rel. Dogliotti; Pm (diff.) Russo
NOTEThe Court specified that the violation of the obligation of loyalty referred to in Article 143 of the Civil Code, under the force of the previous legislation, was linked to adultery, that is, it presupposed the violation of the duty of sexual fidelity, resulting in an offense to the honor and decorum of the spouse, especially if it was ostentatious and known by third parties. With the 1975 reform, however, it is believed that the obligation of fidelity is aimed at guaranteeing and consolidating the communion of life between spouses, leading doctrine and jurisprudence to believe that the violation of this duty represents a break in the relationship of trust between the spouses themselves and, therefore, a deterioration of the mutual agreement and esteem. With this in mind, the pronouncement of the charge takes on the character of exceptionality, the element of imputability of conduct contrary to the resulting duties being relevant from marriage and having regard to particularly serious and repeated violations or in any case framed in an overall assessment of the entire marital affair (Cassation 2740/08).
CHARGE - VIOLATION OF DUTIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 143 CC - SUFFICIENCY - LIMITS (CC, ARTICLE 143)
For the purposes of pronouncing a charge, the mere violation of the duties of the spouses under Article 143 of the Italian Civil Code is not sufficient, but it is necessary to verify whether such violation has assumed causal efficacy in determining the marital crisis, or if it occurred when a situation of intolerability of cohabitation had already matured, so that, in the event of failure to obtain proof that the behavior contrary to the duties arising from the marriage held by one of the spouses, or both, was the cause of the failure of cohabitation, the separation must be pronounced without charge. It does not eliminate the causal link between voluntary removal and the persistence of a previous condition of irreversible conflict of the couple that would have induced the abandonment, the absence of episodes of mistreatment or harassment by the abandoned spouse.
Court of Cassation, Civil Section I, order no. 4540 – Pres. Luccioli; Rel. Cultrera
UNILATERAL REMOVAL FROM THE FAMILY RESIDENCE - BREACH OF MARRIAGE OBLIGATIONS - EXISTING - LIMITS (CC ARTICLES 143, 144, 146 AND 151)
Removal from family residence which, if implemented unilaterally by the spouse, that is, without the consent of the other spouse, confirmed by the refusal to return, it constitutes a breach of a matrimonial obligation and is in itself a sufficient cause of the separation charge, as it leads to the impossibility of cohabitation; this unless it appears or that it was determined by the behavior of the other spouse, in which case the burden of proof lies with the person who carried out the abandonment, or that the aforementioned abandonment occurred when the intolerability of the continuation of coexistence had already occurred and as a consequence of this fact.
Court of Cassation, Civil Section I, judgment no. 16575 – Pres. Luccioli; Rel. Giancola; Pm (conf.) Caliendo
ASSIGNMENT OF THE FAMILY HOME - ABSENCE OF CHILDREN - POSSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE TO ALLOCATE IT AS AN ELEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE - EXCLUSION (CC, ARTICLES 143, 155 AND 156)
In the absence of children, minors or adults who are not self-sufficient cohabiting with the spouses, the judge will not be able to adopt a provision for the assignment of the family home with the separation sentence, whether jointly owned by the spouses, or whether it belongs exclusively to one of them, not even authorizing it under art. 156 of the Italian Civil Code, which does not provide for this assignment as a replacement or as a component maintenance allowance. In the absence of special legislation on separation, the co-owned family home is subject, in fact, to the rules on communion, the regime of which will have to be reference for use and division.
Court of Cassation, Civil Section I, judgment no. 16398 – Pres. Morelli; Rel. Felicetti; Pm (conf.) Ciccolo; Ric. Bertaina; Controric. Scagnetto
ASSIGNMENT OF THE FAMILY HOME - CONDITIONS - COHABITATION OF THE SPOUSE WITH AN OLD CHILD - NEED THAT IT BE THE SAME HOUSE WHERE THE FAMILY LIVED WHEN THEY WERE UNITED - SUBSISTS (CC, ARTICLE 155)
In order to assign the family home to one of the separated or divorced spouses, in which they live with an adult child, it must be the same home in which the life of the family took place when it was united and, moreover, that the cohabiting child is, without fault, in a condition of economic non self-sufficiency. In particular, the assignment of the family home, provided for in Article 155, paragraph 4, of the Civil Code, responding to the need to preserve the home habitat, understood as the center of affection, of the interests and customs in which family life is expressed and articulated, is permitted only with regard to that property that constituted the meeting center of the family during the cohabitation, with the exclusion of any other property that the spouses have the availability.
Court of Cassation, Civil Section I, judgment of 4 July 2011 no. 14553 - Pres. Luccioli; Rel. Dido; Pm (diff.) Litter; Ric. Iannì; Int. Surace The sentence constitutes a title for the registration of the judicial mortgage pursuant to article 2818. In the event of non-compliance, at the request of the person entitled, the judge may order the seizure of part of the assets of the obligated spouse and order third parties, also required to periodically pay sums of money to the obligee, that a part of it is paid directly to the entitled parties. If justified reasons arise, the judge, at the request of a party, may order the revocation or modification of the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
ART. 156-BIS - SURNAME OF THE WIFE
The judge can prohibit the wife from using her husband's surname when such use is seriously prejudicial to him, and can also authorize the wife to do not use the surname itself, if its use could cause serious harm.
ART. 157 TERMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE SEPARATION
The spouses may, by mutual agreement, terminate the effects of the separation sentence without the need for the intervention of the judge, with an express declaration or with an unequivocal behavior that is incompatible with the state of separation. The separation can be pronounced again only in relation to facts and behaviors that occurred after the reconciliation.
ART. 158 CONSENSUAL SEPARATION
The separation for the sole consent of the spouses has no effect without the approval of the judge. When the agreement of the spouses relating to the custody and maintenance of the children is in contrast with the interests of the latter, the judge reconvites the spouses indicating to they the amendments to be adopted in the interest of the children and, in the event of an unsuitable solution, may refuse approval at the state.