Article 237 of the Civil Code establishes an autonomous basis for divorce that does not rely on the agreement of the spouses or the demonstration of fault. Divorce for definitive alteration of the marital bond is distinguished by its purely objective mechanics: only the duration of separation matters. In practice, we observe that this route remains poorly mastered, even by litigants already engaged in contentious proceedings.
Assessment of the one-year period: date of summons or divorce decree
Article 238 of the Civil Code sets the threshold for characterizing the definitive alteration of the marital bond at one year of effective separation. The reform resulting from the law of March 23, 2019, applicable from January 1, 2021, has reduced this period (previously set at two years) and modified its starting point.
When the petitioner invokes the alteration from the summons and specifies the grounds for their request, the one-year period is assessed as of the date of this summons. The judge then verifies that the cessation of the community of life dates back at least twelve months before the filing.
On the other hand, when the petitioner does not indicate the grounds in the summons, the period may be assessed as of the date of the divorce decree. This mechanism, provided for by Article 238, offers procedural flexibility that we recommend anticipating from the drafting of the initiating document.
Further reading : Everything You Need to Know About the SNCF Retired Carmillon Pass: Conditions and Updates Planned for 2026
The choice between these two options conditions the temporal strategy of the case, particularly for recent separations whose duration approaches the legal threshold.
The cessation of the community of life requires the presence of two elements. The material element corresponds to the end of cohabitation: separate residences, absence of life under the same roof. The intentional element reflects the will of at least one spouse not to live together anymore.
Proof can be provided by any means: separate lease contracts, attestations, distinct bank statements, individual tax returns. The evidentiary framework defined by the articles 237 and 238 of the Civil Code is based on this factual logic, without examining marital behavior.
Exemption from the one-year period in case of multiple requests
Article 238 provides for a case of exemption that is too often overlooked. When a request for alteration is joined with another request for divorce, the one-year period is not required. This hypothesis primarily aims at the articulation with divorce for fault.
A spouse may file for divorce for fault as the main claim and invoke the definitive alteration of the marital bond as a subsidiary claim. If the judge rejects the fault due to insufficient evidence, they may decree the divorce based on the alteration, without verifying the passage of the one-year period. This mechanism serves as a procedural safety net.
We observe that this articulation modifies the contentious strategy. The requesting spouse who hesitates between fault and alteration has an interest in formulating both requests simultaneously rather than successively. This avoids a second procedural circuit and reduces the overall duration of the litigation.
Divorce for alteration and absence of fault: consequences on damages
Divorce for definitive alteration of the marital bond is a no-fault divorce in the strict sense. The judge does not have to investigate the wrongful behavior of either spouse to decree the dissolution of the marriage. This neutrality has direct repercussions on claims for damages.
Article 266 of the Civil Code allows a spouse to obtain damages when the dissolution of the marriage causes them particularly serious consequences. In the context of a divorce for alteration, this request remains admissible, but its basis differs from that of divorce for fault. It is not about sanctioning a breach of marital obligations, but about compensating for harm related to the breakup itself.
- Damages based on Article 266 require proof of material or moral consequences of particular gravity, distinct from the mere harm related to the divorce.
- A claim for damages based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (common law liability) remains possible if a wrongful behavior independent of the basis for the divorce is established.
- The judge sovereignly assesses the gravity of the harm, which makes the outcome uncertain in the absence of proven fault.
This distinction between the two bases for damages (Article 266 and Article 1240) is a technical point that the petitioner must clarify from their conclusions. Confusing the two bases exposes the request to rejection.
Effects of divorce on the liquidation of property interests
The decree of divorce for definitive alteration of the marital bond produces the same property effects as any other case of divorce. The date of effects between spouses regarding their assets goes back, unless otherwise agreed, to the date of the non-conciliation order (for older procedures) or to the date set by the judge within the framework of the reformed procedure.
The law of April 7, 2026, relating to co-ownership and the liquidation of property interests modifies certain mechanisms applicable after divorce. The rules for managing post-divorce co-ownership have been adjusted to streamline the division, a particularly sensitive point when the separation in fact has lasted for several years before the judge is seized.
In practice, the long duration of separation that characterizes this type of divorce often complicates the evaluation of assets. Spouses separated for more than a year have often established distinct assets, incurred personal debts, or made investments in common property. The liquidator judge must untangle these financial flows, which prolongs the post-divorce phase.
Divorce for definitive alteration of the marital bond remains the only avenue allowing a spouse to obtain a divorce despite the other’s refusal, without having to prove fault. Its mechanics rely on time and the proof of a real separation. Mastery of the starting point of the period, the articulation with other bases, and the preparation of property liquidation condition the effectiveness of the procedure.