Michael and Eve have been married for 5 years. Their marriage was going well, they lived together and they had shared plans for the future and dreams also… until Eve discovered that Michael was having an affair with a colleague from work. It turned out that this is not just a mere infatuation, but Michael wants to tie up with his new partner, and therefore filed for divorce. However, Eve, despite the harm it caused, still loves Michael and can not imagine life without him. She decided that at all costs she will save their marriage and will not let him go. Is Michael allowed to divorce Eve?
In this situation Michael is undoubtedly guilty of marriage has broken down. Through his treachery he violated the vows and loyalty to the spouse. His right is to demand dissolution of marriage, because it is the law that entitled each spouse and the right that can not be questioned. However, in a situation where only the guilty spouse wants a divorce, the innocent spouse has the right to decide the fate of their marriage. He may agree to a divorce, but also can not express this agreement. Eve has a legitimate reason not to agree to the divorce – she loves Michael and wants to give him a second chance. Although this may seem naive, the court will have to take into account the decision of Eve and probably not judged divorce.
Art. 56 § 3 Kodeksu rodzinnego i opiekuńczego (eng. The family and guardianship code)
Divorce is also not admissible if it is requested by the spouse exclusively guilty of the breakdown, unless the other spouse agrees to the divorce or the refusal of consent to the divorce is under the circumstances incompatible with principles of social coexistence.
Can be marriage of Eve and Michael untied? Is there any way to oppose Eve’s decision? Well, the court will not be able to accept Eve’s refusal, if it is under the circumstances incompatible with principles of social coexistence. This would be the case if the denial deserves condemnation from the moral point of view, for example spouse wants to harass the other one in order to disrupt his life due to his decision. The decision to refuse the divorce should be assessed objectively, so if the facts of the case indicate that refusal is not good for nothing else as inflicting harm to a spouse wishing divorce, the court should not accept such a decision.
Returning to the example of Michael and Eve, if we imagine, that Michael became involved permanently with his new partner, they have a common child, and there are no longer ties between Michael and Eve, but she still does not agree to divorce, the court should thoroughly consider the legitimacy of the Eve’s decision. Court should carefully examine the relationship of Michael and Eve, especially is it completely dead, without any chance for renewal and is Eve the only reason to prevent Michael legalize his current relationship with another woman. The court will have to carefully assess whether, in the specific circumstances of the case shall he protect the right to the innocent spouse to maintain the existing marriage or the right to divorce a guilty spouse and legalize his informal relationship in which he remains. The evaluation may turn out that the refusal decision to divorce is misplaced, and the marriage should be dissolved, because there is no future or grounds for further existence.
- if spouse requesting the divorce has only culpable causes of marriage dissolution, the other spouse can not oppose the divorce,
- spouse may oppose the divorce only if he is innocent or on its side there are only culpable causes and not so serious that would make complete and permanent disintegration of marriage,
- consent to the divorce should be expressed before the court in a way clear and completely safe, freely, without any pressure or threats of any of the parties,
- the consent given earlier but withdrawn after is treated as if it were not given,
- court will study the other conditions permitting divorce: durable and a complete breakdown of marriage, lack of negative impact of divorce on the welfare of the minor children, no contradiction with the principles of social coexistence.
Court of Appeal in Katowice on 15.07.2004 r., ACa 375/04; Supreme Court on 07.08.1959 r., I CO 16/59; Supreme Court on 01.07.1969 r., II CR 528/68; Supreme Court on 05.15.1956 r., I CR 746/55, Supreme Court on 26.02.2002 r., I CKN 305/01, Supreme Court on 28.02.2002 r., III CKN 545/00
If you need legal advise or want to consult your case, contact with me by contact form HERE.