Court rules that a mortgage debt cannot restrict the alimentary support amount owed to a child.

The court upheld the claimant's request to establish alimentary support based on the debtor's net income, rejecting the defense that a mortgage obligation should reduce this amount. The court found that while the debtor must plan expenses according to their means, a credit commitment cannot legally limit the funds available for the child's maintenance and education. Consequently, the court determined that the statutory obligation to support the child takes precedence over the debtor's debt obligations.