Short answer
The marital union may be treated as irretrievably broken under TMK Art. 166/1 if common life has deteriorated so far that the spouses cannot be expected to continue it. The statute does not contain a closed list of every event. Gravity, repetition, the spouses’ circumstances, fault and the effect on common life are assessed together; not every disagreement produces the same result.
This article focuses on the questions with which particular events should be assessed. The mere fact that an example appears on a list does not mean that a claim based on it will necessarily be accepted. The event and its legally relevant effect must be established in the proper form. This article is general legal information; it is not advice for a specific case.
Can a single event be enough?
A single event that heavily affects the marriage may cause irretrievable breakdown. Conversely, lighter conduct repeated over a long period may also make common life unsustainable. The assessment cannot be reduced solely to the number of events or the duration of the marriage.
For conduct such as persistent belittling, examples of repetition and the effect on daily life matter. For a single event such as a serious threat, the content of the words, the circumstances and the risk created are assessed. Phrases such as “it happened once” or “it has gone on for years” do not by themselves complete the legal analysis.
How the spouses continued the relationship after the event may also be taken into account. Continuing to live together because of economic necessity or child-related constraints is not the same as genuinely forgiving the event. The periods before and after the event must be explained.
Physical violence and threats
Physical violence, threats and conduct that seriously endangers safety are important in assessing the marital union. Depending on the nature of the event, special grounds for divorce or criminal law may also arise. Which legal route is relied on is determined by the concrete facts and the claims.
A protection measure and the final fault assessment in the divorce case are not the same operation. The preventive purpose of a measure does not mean that every allegation in the file has been proved. Protection decisions, application records and health documents may nevertheless be assessed together with other evidence.
If there is an urgent safety need, the 112 emergency line and the application routes under Law No. 6284 may be used. Filing or completing a divorce case is not a condition of protection. Gathering evidence should not be treated as a duty that requires a person to put themselves in danger.
Persistent insult, humiliation and control
Humiliating a spouse in public, repeating honour-injuring words, isolating them from their social circle through threats, or managing daily life through pressure may affect common life. The extent to which the conduct occurred and its effect on the spouse must be particularised.
Not every criticism or argument has the same legal weight. The words used, the setting, repetition and the purpose of the conduct matter. Disagreeing with a spouse’s view must be distinguished from insult or persistent pressure.
Digital control may also be assessed under this heading. How events such as constant account monitoring, unauthorised location tracking or blocking communication channels occurred should be described. The marital relationship does not entirely abolish personal space and the secrecy of correspondence.
Economic violence and neglect of family expenses
Failing to meet necessary family expenses despite ability to pay, taking a spouse’s income by pressure, or blocking access to basic needs may be in issue. The family’s real needs, income situation and the sharing of expenses are examined together.
Becoming unemployed, being unable to work because of illness, or having a low income is not, by itself, fault. Economic difficulty and economic pressure must be distinguished. A spouse’s domestic labour and contribution to child care should also be visible.
If it is alleged that family resources were consumed through gambling or similar conduct, the dates, amounts and effect on common life should be documented. A single banking transaction may not prove the purpose of use. The link between account movements and the alleged conduct must be explained.
Damage to loyalty and the relationship of trust
A relationship with third persons, secret meetings or correspondence that undermines trust may arise under the general ground for divorce. Not every such event meets all the conditions of the special ground of adultery. What the evidence shows and the effect of the conduct on common life are assessed separately.
Suspicion, rumour or jealousy alone is not sufficient proof. On the other hand, an event that cannot be proved as adultery is not entirely disregarded, if properly pleaded, as to its effect on the relationship of trust. The petition should clearly set out the relationship between special and general grounds.
A spouse’s professional or social contacts are not, by themselves, infidelity. Concrete facts distinguishing ordinary communication from conduct contrary to marital duty should be shown. The persistent repetition of unfounded accusations may itself be conduct that affects the relationship.
Interference by families and independent life
Close relations with the spouses’ families are not, by themselves, a ground for divorce. How a spouse responds to insult, pressure or interference in private life by family members may, however, matter for common life. The allegation must explain not only the third person’s conduct but also the concrete conduct attributed to the spouse.
Where the common home is established, pressure to live in the same house as the family, and the protection of private space are assessed according to the concrete circumstances. Housing possibilities, economic situation and the spouses’ real wills matter. Not every family visit or every housing disagreement produces the same result.
Conduct relating to children and care duties
Persistently neglecting children’s basic care, using the relationship with the other parent in a harmful way, or deliberately avoiding family responsibilities may affect the marital union. The children’s safety and the dispute between the spouses are assessed together, but by separate legal criteria.
The determining criterion in a custody decision is the child’s best interests. A spouse found at fault in the marriage cannot automatically be said to be unsuitable for custody. Care capacity, safety, the child’s routine and, where needed, an expert examination matter.
Forcing a child to take sides or putting pressure to give evidence is not appropriate preparation of proof. Where a child’s account must be taken, methods suited to age and development should be observed. The litigation strategy between parents should not take precedence over the child’s needs.
Are illness and incompatibility enough on their own?
Illness or disability is not, by itself, a reason to attribute divorce fault to a person. The special ground based on mental illness is regulated separately in TMK Art. 165, with its own conditions. The matter must be addressed by the statutory conditions and expert assessment, not by the name of the health condition.
In differences of lifestyle, belief or personal preference, concrete conduct and the effect on common life also matter. Exercising fundamental rights cannot automatically be treated as fault. Pressure, coercion or conduct that violates the other spouse’s rights is assessed separately.
Is long separation enough on its own?
The mere duration of living apart does not, in every file, automatically produce divorce. TMK Art. 166/4 contains a special rule where one year has passed from finality of a previous rejected divorce judgment and common life has not been re-established. A new divorce claim is required.
This one-year period is not a general waiting time applied to every separation or every new divorce case. If there is no previous rejection and finality, the conditions of the other grounds are assessed. The three-year period found in older sources is not current in light of the amendment made by Law No. 7532.
Sources and related guides
The principal bases are TMK Arts. 166, 185–186 and the relevant special divorce provisions. The examples do not form a closed list or a promised outcome; fault, event and evidence are assessed separately in each file.