The Supreme Court clarifies this in JUDGMENT OF MARCH 28, 2022 Roj: STS 1207/2022 - ECLI:ES:TS:2022:1207 Appeal No.: 1941/2021 Rapporteur: Hon. Mr. Francisco Javier Arroyo Fiestas

Even though the compensatory pension is not a mechanism for balancing assets and acknowledging that both spouses are employed, it is evident that the marriage and the care of the children caused a significant imbalance for the wife, as she requested a reduction in working hours to care for the minors, which objectively affected her career advancement opportunities, and this should have an economic response in the form of a compensatory pension.

“Based on this jurisprudential doctrine dictated in the interpretation of art. 97 of the Civil Code, we must uphold the appeal, given that even though the compensatory pension is not a mechanism for balancing assets and acknowledging that both spouses are employed, it is evident that the marriage and the care of the children caused a significant imbalance for the wife, as she requested a reduction in working hours to care for the minors, which objectively affected her career advancement opportunities, and this should have an economic response in the form of a compensatory pension set by this Chamber, as well as by the court, at 150 euros per month, for five years, calculated from this resolution, with the same update as set by the court.”