Divorce is always a very difficult experience for spouses. The parties often want to dissolve the marriage quickly and as painlessly as possible. The legislator makes this possible through Article 57 § 2 of the Civil Code, according to which, at the request of the spouses, the court will abandon the adjudication of guilt. In this case, the consequences follow as if neither spouse was at fault. Unfortunately, sometimes the conflict of the parties is so serious, and the baggage of unpleasant experiences so heavy, that the waiver of adjudication of guilt does not have the consent of one or both parties. Then Article 57 § 1 of the Civil Code applies, according to which, when pronouncing a divorce, the court also decides whether and which of the spouses is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.
In order for fault to be attributed for the breakdown of a marriage, the marital duties listed in Article 23 of the Marriage Code must be violated. According to the wording of this provision, spouses are obliged to live together, to help and be faithful to each other, and to work together for the good of the family they have established by their union. In this regard, it is not necessary, in order to impute guilt to a spouse, to include his or her intention to cause, through certain acts or omissions, the breakdown of the marriage leading ultimately to divorce. The possibility of foreseeing the meaning and consequences of such an act or omission is sufficient. It is worth adding at this point that the possibility of attributing fault to a spouse in the breakdown of the marriage is excluded in the case of his/her insanity, as well as in the case of transient even mental disturbances, if in these states he/she committed an act or omission that led to the formation of a complete and permanent breakdown of the marriage (Judgment of the Supreme Court of January 28, 2004 IV CK 406/02).
It should be explained that in doctrine it is unanimously accepted that common life includes three ties-spiritual, physical and economic. Their violation, in itself, does not cause the breakup of the marriage, but can lead to a permanent and complete breakdown of cohabitation, which is already a prerequisite for the pronouncement of divorce. The obligation to assist each other is largely concretized in Article 27 of the Civil Code, according to which spouses are obliged to contribute to the satisfaction of the needs of the family they have established by their union. Satisfaction of this obligation may also consist, in whole or in part, in personal efforts to raise children and work in the joint household. Of course, mutual assistance is not limited to material assistance, but also includes spiritual and emotional assistance. Loyalty and fidelity should be the foundation of any marriage, and their omission can lead to the de facto breakup of the relationship. At the same time, it should be remembered that fidelity refers not only to the physical, but also to the emotional sphere. On the other hand, cooperation for the good of the family and contributing to the satisfaction of its needs is an obligation that is not nullified even by the establishment of property separation.
In assessing whether and which spouse is guilty of marital breakdown, it is necessary to take into account the circumstances under which the breakdown was initiated. For example, fault cannot be attributed to a wife who refused physical intercourse because her husband abused her.
In a divorce, the court does not gradate fault-it does not assess which party is „more” or „less” at fault. In practice, this means that even if one of the parties is almost entirely at fault, but nevertheless the other party has also failed to fulfill marital obligations in full-the court may pronounce a divorce based on the fault of both parties. The spouse is solely to blame for the breakup of the marriage if only on his side are the causes. Among the most common of these are violence, infidelity, abandonment.
The dissolution of a marriage with a judgment of guilt is significant for several reasons. First and foremost, it is relevant to alimony obligations. After all, if one of the spouses has been found solely guilty of marital breakdown, and the divorce entails a significant deterioration in the financial situation of the innocent spouse, the court, at the request of the innocent spouse, may rule that the solely guilty spouse is obliged to contribute to an appropriate extent to the satisfaction of the justified needs of the innocent spouse. In cases where the court has waived the adjudication of guilt, or where it has recognized guilt on both sides, the divorced spouse may demand the provision of maintenance only if he or she has fallen into privation. An adjudication of guilt can also have consequences for the exercise of parental authority. Of course, this in itself is not a rationale for its termination or limitation, but it does require the court to examine whether the guilty party's maintenance of parental authority will be consistent with the welfare of the minor. Another consequence of divorce with a guilty verdict is sent in Article 56 § 3 of the Civil Code. According to the wording of this provision, divorce is not permissible if it is demanded by a spouse who is solely at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, unless the other spouse consents to the divorce or that the refusal of his consent to the divorce is, under the circumstances, contrary to the principles of social intercourse.
If we have already made the decision to divorce, it is worth at least trying to make it go as smoothly as possible. This will save us nerves and perhaps enable us to maintain at least a proper relationship with our former partner. Unfortunately, there are situations in life when this is not possible, and then Article 57 § 1 of the Civil Code comes to the rescue.
