深入剖析民法第1052條，離婚的多元情境-縱然往事重提，還是有機會離婚！？【楊忠憲律師】

在現代社會，婚姻是人們生活中的一個重要組成部分，但有時卻也可能面臨無法彌合的破裂。為了處理這一難題，民法第1052條規定了難以維持婚姻的情況下，夫妻可以請求離婚，而這一法條的解釋和適用在司法實踐中扮演著至關重要的角色。通過分析一系列判例，我們可以深入了解民法第1052條的要件，以及相關的判斷標準。
民法第1052條第1項列舉了一系列的離婚事由，包括重婚、配偶間合意性交、虐待、遺棄等。然而，婚姻關係的複雜性常常使得無法僅僅通過列舉事由來涵蓋所有情況。因此，民法第1052條第2項的設立就成了一個必要。這一項的存在，讓法律對於難以維持婚姻的多元情境具有了更大的彈性。在最高法院的判例中，我們看到了對民法第1052條的深入解讀。一些關鍵的判決強調了判斷婚姻是否難以維持的客觀標準。判斷標準應該是婚姻是否已經生破裂而無法回復。這一標準是建立在夫妻處於同樣境況下，是否都已經失去了繼續維持婚姻的意欲。在此基礎上，婚姻關係的實際情況成為了判斷的依據，如感情疏離、長期分居等。
此外，民法第1052條第2項明確指出，未列的重大事由也可成為離婚的理由，只要婚姻已難以維持。這樣的規定體現了對現實情況的理解，婚姻是否能夠繼續，不能僅僅根據法條所列情況來判斷。
憲法法庭3月24日作成112年憲判字第4號判決，指出『民法第1052條第2項規定，有同條第1項規定以外之重大事由，難以維持婚姻者，夫妻之一方得請求離婚；但其事由應由夫妻之一方負責者，僅他方得請求離婚。其中但書規定限制有責配偶請求裁判離婚，原則上與憲法第22條保障婚姻自由之意旨尚屬無違。惟其規定不分難以維持婚姻之重大事由發生後，是否已逾相當期間，或該事由是否已持續相當期間，一律不許唯一有責之配偶一方請求裁判離婚，完全剝奪其離婚之機會，而可能導致個案顯然過苛之情事，於此範圍內，與憲法保障婚姻自由之意旨不符。』所以，民法第1052條為難以維持婚姻的情況提供了一個富有彈性的解決方案，縱然對方之前有反覆出軌，即是受到原諒後，仍有機會主張離婚事由。

 

Analysis of Civil Code Article 1052 – Diverse Scenarios of Divorce: Revisiting the Past, Still have Chance ?

In modern society, marriage constitutes a significant aspect of people’s lives, yet it may also confront irreparable breakdowns at times. To address this complex issue, Civil Code Article 1052 provides a legal basis for couples to seek divorce when maintaining the marriage becomes challenging. The interpretation and application of this article play a crucial role in judicial practice. Through the analysis of a series of cases, we can gain a deeper understanding of the prerequisites and relevant criteria of Civil Code Article 1052.

Civil Code Article 1052, paragraph 1, enumerates several grounds for divorce, including bigamy, consensual intercourse between spouses, abuse, desertion, among others. However, the intricacies of marital relationships often make it impossible to encompass all situations through the listed grounds alone. Hence, the establishment of paragraph 2 in Civil Code Article 1052 becomes necessary. The existence of this provision grants the law greater flexibility in dealing with diverse situations where maintaining the marriage becomes challenging. In decisions from the Supreme Court, we observe a thorough interpretation of Civil Code Article 1052. Certain pivotal judgments emphasize an objective criterion for determining whether a marriage is unsustainable – whether the marriage has already shattered beyond repair. This criterion is based on whether both spouses have lost the willingness to continue the marriage under the same circumstances. On this basis, the actual state of the marital relationship becomes the basis for judgment, such as emotional distance, prolonged separation, and so forth.

Furthermore, Civil Code Article 1052, paragraph 2, explicitly states that significant grounds not listed can also serve as reasons for divorce, as long as the marriage has become unsustainable. This provision reflects an understanding of the realities; the viability of the marriage should not be judged solely based on the circumstances listed in the law.

In the Constitutional Court’s decision No. 4 of the 112th year rendered on March 24th, it is stated, “Civil Code Article 1052, paragraph 2, stipulates that in cases of other significant grounds that make the marriage unsustainable, either spouse can request a divorce. However, if these grounds are caused by one of the spouses, only the other party can request the divorce. Such limitations do not violate the spirit of freedom to marry as protected by Article 22 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, this provision should not excessively deprive the spouse at fault of the opportunity to request a divorce, particularly in cases where a reasonable period has elapsed or the grounds have persisted for a certain duration. Such restrictions might lead to situations that are overly stringent, contradicting the original intention of safeguarding the freedom to marry as enshrined in the Constitution.” Therefore, Civil Code Article 1052 offers a flexible solution for situations where maintaining the marriage is difficult. Even if a party has previously been at fault, there is still an opportunity to claim divorce grounds, especially after a period of forgiveness.