Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act

A family court that has made a ruling under the provisions of Article 39 to impose an obligation on a person (if the court in charge of an appeal has made a judicial decision to impose an obligation on a person under the provisions of Article 91, paragraph (1) (including the cases where applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 96, paragraph (1) and Article 98, paragraph (1)), the family court that is the court of first instance; and if a high court has made a judicial decision to impose an obligation on a person pursuant to the provisions of Article 105, paragraph (2), the family court that is the court of first instance of the case for adjudication of domestic relations on the merits; the same applies hereinafter) may, upon the request of an obligee, examine the status of the performance of the obligation determined by the ruling (if the court in charge of an appeal or a high court has made a judicial decision to determine an obligation, by the judicial decision; the same applies in paragraph (1) of the following Article), and recommend an obligor to perform the obligation.

A family court that has made a ruling under the provisions of Article 39 to impose an obligation on a person may commission another family court to conduct an examination and make a recommendation under the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

A family court that has made a ruling under the provisions of Article 39 to impose an obligation on a person as well as a family court that has been commissioned to conduct an examination and make a recommendation under the provisions of the preceding paragraph (these family courts are referred to as a "family court responsible for examination and recommendation" in the following paragraph through paragraph (6)) may have a family court investigating officer conduct the examination and make the recommendation under the provisions of paragraph (1).

When a family court responsible for examination and recommendation, in connection with the examination and recommendation under the provisions of paragraph (1), finds it to be necessary in order to coordinate the home, and other environments of a person concerned with the case, it may have a family court investigating officer communicate with a social welfare organization or take other measures.

A family court responsible for examination and recommendation may commission a government agency, public officer, or any other entity as it finds appropriate to conduct the examination necessary for the examination and recommendation under the provisions of paragraph (1), or may request a bank, a trust company or the employer of a person concerned or any other person to make the necessary report concerning the deposits, trust property, income, or other matters regarding the person concerned.

When a person concerned with a case subject to examination and recommendation under the provisions of paragraph (1) makes a request for the inspection of a record, etc. or reproduction of a record of the case, the family court responsible for examination and recommendation may permit the inspection, etc. or reproduction when it finds it to be appropriate.

The provisions of the preceding paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis to the performance of an obligation imposed on a person by mediation or by a ruling in lieu of mediation (including an obligation imposed on a person by a high court; the same applies in paragraph (3) of the following Article) and the performance of matters ordered as a disposition prior to mediation.

When a family court has made a ruling under the provisions of Article 39 to impose an obligation on a person, and the person has neglected to perform the obligation to pay money or provide any other property benefit as imposed by the ruling, the family court may, when it finds it to be appropriate and upon the petition of the obligee, make a ruling to specify a reasonable period and order the obligor to perform the obligation within that period. In this case, the order is to be issued in relation to the whole or part of the obligation the obligor has neglected to perform by the time the order has been issued.

When a family court that has made a ruling under the provisions of Article 39 to impose an obligation on a person orders the performance of the obligation pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, it must hear statements from the obligor.

The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis to the performance of an obligation imposed on a person by mediation or by a ruling in lieu of mediation.

Beyond what is provided for in the preceding three paragraphs, the procedure to make a ruling to order the performance of an obligation under the provisions of paragraph (1) (including the cases where applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to the preceding paragraph) is to be as prescribed in Part II, Chapter I.

If a person who has been ordered to perform an obligation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) (including cases where applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to paragraph (3)) does not comply with the order without justifiable grounds, the family court punishes the person by a non-criminal fine of up to 100,000 yen.