Divorce and Reconciliation – The Law

Summary and Conclusion of the Case: Encouraging Reconciliation Without Penalizing Divorce

This case addresses whether a conditional divorce order can be finalized after the parties attempted to reconcile for 15 months following the granting of the conditional order. The decision, delivered by HHJ Simmonds, National Lead Judge for Divorce, clarifies how judicial discretion should be exercised under the Divorce, Dissolution, and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), particularly in cases where couples attempt reconciliation but ultimately decide to proceed with divorce.

Key Points:

1. Facts:

• The parties married in 2011 and experienced a marital breakdown in 2022.
• A sole divorce application was filed on May 12, 2022, citing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
• A conditional order was granted on October 27, 2022.
• The parties reconciled in March 2023 but separated again in June 2024.
• The applicant sought a final order in August 2024, 15 months after the reconciliation began.

1. Legal Framework:

• The DDSA 2020 allows divorce based solely on the assertion that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, removing the need to prove fault.
• Rule 7.19 of the Family Procedure Rules requires applicants to explain any delay if a final order is sought more than 12 months after the conditional order.
• Rule 7.34 permits the rescission of a conditional order if the parties reconcile and consent to the rescission.

1. Judicial Discretion:

• The court considered whether the reconciliation invalidated the original basis for the conditional order.
• Citing precedents such as Savage v Savage [1982] Fam 100, the court emphasized that reconciliation attempts should not undermine the basis for divorce unless they materially alter the circumstances on which the conditional order was granted.

Conclusion:

HHJ Simmonds ruled as follows:

1. Reconciliation attempts lasting less than two years do not invalidate the assertion that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
2. Couples should be encouraged to attempt reconciliation without fear of being penalized by rigid court timelines.
3. Reconciliation efforts exceeding two years may indicate a material change in circumstances, potentially negating the basis for the conditional order.

In this case, the 15-month reconciliation period did not invalidate the original basis for divorce, and the final order was granted. This decision underscores that couples who attempt reconciliation for up to two years will not be penalized if they ultimately decide to proceed with divorce, provided the original claim of irretrievable breakdown remains valid. The ruling promotes a balanced approach, encouraging reconciliation while respecting the finality of divorce proceedings under the DDSA 2020.