Breakdown of marital life: when does the court grant a divorce

Before the court addresses issues concerning children, child support, or housing, it must answer one question: whether it is even permitted to grant a divorce. This is answered by Article 56 of the Family and Guardianship Code, specifically the concept of complete and permanent breakdown of marital life. Below we explain exactly what the court examines, how much time must pass, and in which three situations the court will not grant a divorce despite the marriage breakdown.

The text is based on many years of practical experience of attorneys at law and legal counsels from Syndykat Prawniczy, handling divorce cases before district courts throughout Poland. The provisions can be found in the Family and Guardianship Code, mainly in Articles 56 to 61, and the procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure, especially Articles 425 to 446.

Positive ground for divorce, i.e. Article 56 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code

According to Article 56 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, the court may grant a divorce only if there has been a complete and permanent breakdown of marital lifebetween the spouses. In legal terminology, this is called the positive ground for divorce. The court thus sanctions a situation where all bonds between the spouses have ceased, and this state is irreversible.

Here the complication begins, as the Code does not define what "complete and permanent breakdown of marital life" means. This was defined by the Supreme Court jurisprudence, primarily the guidelines from 1955 (Supreme Court resolution of 28 May 1955, I CO 5/55, commonly known as the divorce guidelines) and subsequent rulings. This remains valid to this day.

Three bonds examined by the court

The breakdown of marital life consists in the cessation of each of the three bonds uniting the marriage: emotional, physical, and economic. It is a situation where the spouses have lost spiritual understanding, ceased to feel affection for each other, do not run a joint household, and physical cohabitation between them has ended.

It is worth remembering that the breakdown of marital life is a process, i.e., a dynamic phenomenon that may change, for example, deepen. It happens that the behavior of one spouse accelerates the breakdown, such as a reaction to infidelity committed by the other.

Emotional bond

The emotional bond, also called spiritual or psychological, is the set of feelings each spouse has towards the other, insofar as positive feelings prevail, identified with love. It is considered broken when each spouse declares a lack of emotional involvement towards the other.

Doubt arises when one spouse wants to continue the marriage, claiming to still love the partner, while the other definitively denies the existence of the bond. Clients sometimes say: "I haven't loved him for five years." This is a sufficient ground, but the court will ask for specifics: since when, why, and whether there were attempts to save the relationship. The mere fact of lack of affection is enough but must be properly described.

Examples of manifestations of the loss of emotional bond:

• de facto separation, i.e., living in different places,
• one or both spouses being in another relationship,
• constant quarrels and conflicts,
• actions by one spouse to the detriment of the other, such as denunciations, intrigues, or violence,
• lack of spending time together: holidays, walks, meals, family visits.

Physical bond

The physical bond consists in the spouses maintaining sexual relations. It does not have to be regular; it is sufficient that sexual intercourse occurs occasionally to consider the bond intact. If the marriage is sexually active, even if the spouses declare the loss of feelings and lack of economic bond, the court will most likely not grant a divorce.

The judge does not ask for details, only the fact: "Do you maintain intimate contacts? Since when not?" The answer should be brief and to the point. From our experience, clients fear this question more than questions about infidelity, unnecessarily, as divorce hearings are held behind closed doors.

Examples of manifestations of the loss of physical bond:

• de facto separation,
• occupying separate bedrooms,
• one or both spouses being in another relationship.

Economic bond

The economic bond is the cooperation of spouses in providing material support for the family. In practice, this translates into making joint decisions regarding the family's material needs: housing, food, clothing, cleaning supplies. It is considered broken both when the spouses no longer live together and when they still occupy the same premises but do not cooperate in meeting the family's needs.

This area has the most nuances. If husband and wife live in the same apartment because neither has anywhere else to go, but each cooks separately, does their own shopping, and pays their half of the rent, the economic bond is broken. Judges understand this. Jurisprudence has long accepted that mere cohabitation does not negate the breakdown of the economic bond (see Supreme Court ruling of 28 September 2000, IV CKN 112/00).

Examples of manifestations of the loss of economic bond:

• de facto separation,
• lack of joint household shopping,
• conflicts over managing joint property,
• conflicts over paying bills for the shared apartment or other joint obligations, such as loans,
• being in another relationship and incurring new financial obligations with the new partner,
• one spouse filing a claim for maintenance or for an amount to cover family needs.

When the breakdown is "complete"

A complete breakdown is one that concerns all three bonds. In practice, however, the Supreme Court in a resolution of the full Civil Chamber from 1955 allowed an exception: if one of the bonds exists only fragmentarily, for example, spouses occasionally eat together, but the others are broken and there is no chance of their restoration, the court may grant a divorce.

This also works the other way around. It happens that despite the absence of one of these elements, the marriage should still be considered alive:

• Lack of economic ties for objective reasons, such as one spouse working in a distant location, a long-term military mission, or work at sea, stay in a penal institution or hospital, living separately due to lack of a shared residence. If despite this there is an emotional bond and harmonious cohabitation (spiritual understanding may manifest, for example, in maintained correspondence), there is no breakdown.
• Lack of physical ties for reasons beyond the parties' control, such as illness, advanced age, long absences due to the nature of work, isolation due to illness or stay in a penal institution. If this does not affect the quality of the relationship, it does not mean a breakdown of cohabitation.

When is the breakdown “permanent,” i.e., how long must it last

A permanent breakdown is one that reasonably does not promise a return to joint cohabitation. How long must it last? The Code does not specify. Practice: usually at least six months. However, there are cases where the court granted a divorce after three months from moving out because the circumstances were unequivocal: infidelity, aggression, and a new relationship of the respondent.

The assessment always takes into account the circumstances of the specific case. Generally, a permanent breakdown is recognized when a longer time has passed since the spouses’ separation, with the length considered sufficient depending on the duration of the marriage: the longer the period of joint cohabitation, the longer the separation period required to destroy the bonds justifying a divorce decree.

The passage of a long time does not always determine the permanence of the breakdown. Conversely, although exceptional, it sometimes happens that the breakdown can be considered permanent shortly after the bond is broken. This applies, for example, when spouses never began joint cohabitation at all or when circumstances causing one spouse to completely lose trust and feel repulsion toward the other emerged shortly after marriage, such as the fact of being in an informal relationship with another person.

When the court will refuse a divorce, i.e., three negative conditions

Article 56 § 2 and 3 of the Family and Guardianship Code (KRiO) describes three situations in which the court will not grant a divorce, even if the breakdown is complete and permanent.

1. The welfare of common minor children

If the divorce would harm the welfare of the children, the court will refuse the divorce. This is a rare situation, concerning extreme cases, for example when the parent requesting the divorce wants to take the child into a pathological environment. In ordinary family cases, this condition does not apply because divorce usually does not harm children more than continued life of parents together in open conflict. Jurisprudence here is quite liberal.

2. Principles of social coexistence

This is a broad clause. In practice, it is most often used when one spouse is seriously ill (cancer, severe depression, disability) and divorce would be a blow to them, while the other wants to leave for a new partner. A classic case: the wife suffers from multiple sclerosis, the husband has fallen in love with another person. The court may say: not now. The Supreme Court’s case law is casuistic, each case is assessed individually.

3. Objection of the innocent spouse

If the divorce is requested by the spouse solely at fault for the breakdown of cohabitation, and the other does not consent, the court will not grant the divorce unless the refusal is contrary to the principles of social coexistence in the given circumstances (art. 56 § 3 KRiO).

Sounds complicated, but in practice it looks like this: the husband who cheated and left the family files for divorce. The wife does not agree and is herself not at fault. Formally, the court should dismiss the claim. But if the spouses have not lived together for eight years, he has a new family and child, and she blocks the divorce “on principle,” the court usually finds the refusal contrary to social coexistence principles and grants the divorce. We write more about the fault mechanism in the text about whether to choose a fault or no-fault divorce.

One caveat at the end

There is no simple divorce. Some cases can be closed in one hearing in half an hour, and others drag on for four years, go to appeal twice, and end in a bitter compromise. Most fall in between. Our experience will help you divorce with the least damage to your relationship with each other and your children, because that is the most important thing in divorce: to achieve your goals without destroying the innocent.

Most common questions about divorce grounds

Can the court refuse a divorce if both spouses want it?

Yes, although it is rare. The mutual will of the parties does not replace the ground of breakdown of cohabitation; the court must still establish that it is complete and permanent. If testimony shows that the spouses still cohabit and run a joint household, and want a divorce for other reasons, the court will dismiss the claim. It may also refuse due to the welfare of common minor children.

How long must spouses live apart to get a divorce?

The provision does not specify any period, and living apart is not a condition for divorce at all. One can divorce while still living under the same roof if the three bonds have actually ceased. In practice, courts usually expect at least several months from the actual separation, and the longer the marriage, the longer the period required.

Can you get a divorce if you still live together?

Yes. Jurisprudence has long accepted that cohabitation does not negate the breakdown of economic ties if spouses run separate households: each does their own shopping, cooks separately, settles their share of bills. However, this must be demonstrated, preferably with specifics: separate accounts, divided bills, separate bedrooms.

Does the court ask about intimate life?

It asks about the fact of cessation of physical cohabitation and since when there has been no sexual intercourse. It does not ask for details. The divorce hearing is held behind closed doors, so there is no public in the courtroom.

What if the other party claims they still love me?

One party’s declaration of feelings does not decide the case. The court examines whether the bond exists realistically and mutually. If one spouse definitively denies the existence of an emotional bond, and the other two bonds have also ceased, the breakdown condition is met. Such a situation prolongs the proceedings because the court usually wants to examine both parties more thoroughly and sometimes refers the case to mediation.

How does divorce differ from separation?

Separation requires only a completebreakdown, it does not have to be permanent. This is an important difference: if spouses are unsure whether the separation is final, separation can be an intermediate solution. However, separation does not allow entering into a new marriage and can be lifted by mutual consent of the parties. Details are described in the separations.

section.

Do you have a divorce case? divorces, read, how to prepare for divorce, or write to us via contact form.

The article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every divorce case is different, and the outcome depends on specific circumstances that require individual assessment. Legal status: August 2026.