12. Counsel for the appellant relies, however, on comments in the case law which suggest that certain factors may per se justify a court in varying the terms of a settlement agreement. He submits, for example, that the fact that the appellant is now in receipt of public assistance is one such factor. However, as mentioned in Pelech, the fact that a former spouse has become or may become a public charge does not by itself justify the variation of a spousal maintenance order. In the absence of a radical change in circumstances tied to a marriage related pattern of economic dependency "the obligation to support the former spouse should be, as in the case of any other citizen, the communal responsibility of the state" (Pelech v. Pelech, supra, at p. 852). Otherwise a person who has once been married continues to be contingently liable for the support of his or her former spouse for the duration of their joint lives.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.