Editing Divorce (section)

==History==

===Greco-Roman culture===
{{See also|Marriage in ancient Rome}}
[[File:Roman marriage vows.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|Roman married couple.]]
Rather than being conceived as a legal procedure, divorce in [[Classical Athens]] was largely thought to be a private matter — defined by law, but with no specific legal action required. To divorce his wife, an Athenian man need only to dismiss her by sending her back to her family. It is unknown what would have constituted socially acceptable grounds for divorce, save for the fact that it was required by law for men to divorce adulterous women. The procedure for divorce was considerably more difficult for women. In order to initiate divorce, Athenian women were required to appear in public before the archon to state their case. This procedure was a considerable exception to standard Athenian legal conventions, which barred women from representing themselves in court, as woman-initiated divorce proceedings required a woman to represent herself as a matter of public record.<ref name="Divorce in Classical Athens">{{cite journal |last1=Cohn-Haft |first1=Louis |title=Divorce in Classical Athens |journal=The Journal of Hellenic Studies |date=1995 |volume=115 |issue=115 |pages=1–14|doi=10.2307/631640 |jstor=631640 |s2cid=161594618 }}</ref>

Divorce was rare in early Roman culture but as their [[Roman Empire|empire]] grew in power and authority [[Roman law#civil law|Roman civil law]] embraced the maxim, "{{lang|la|matrimonia debent esse libera}}" ("marriages ought to be free"), and either husband or wife could renounce the marriage at will. The Christian emperors [[Constantine I|Constantine]] and [[Theodosius]] restricted the grounds for divorce to grave cause, but this was relaxed by [[Justinian I|Justinian]] in the 6th century.

===Mali Empire===
In [[post-classical]] [[Mali Empire|Mali]], laws relating to divorced women were documented in the [[Timbuktu manuscripts]].<ref>Djian, Jean-Michel (24 May 2007). [http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=37896&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html Timbuktu manuscripts: Africa's written history unveiled] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091111190441/http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D37896%26URL_DO%3DDO_PRINTPAGE%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html |date=11 November 2009 }}. Unesco, ID 37896.</ref>

===Medieval Europe===
After the fall of the Roman Empire, familial life was regulated more by ecclesiastical authority than civil authority. The Catholic and Orthodox Church had, among others, a differing view of divorce.

The Orthodox Church recognized that there are rare occasions when it is better that couples do separate. For the Orthodox, to say that marriage is indissoluble means that it should not be broken, the violation of such a union, perceived as holy, being an offense resulting from either adultery or the prolonged absence of one of the partners. Thus, permitting remarriage is an act of compassion of the Church towards sinful man.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm|title=Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Orthodox Church: Economia and Pastoral Guidance|publisher=The Orthodox research Institute|author=Mgr. Athenagoras Peckstadt, Bishop of Sinope|date=18 May 2005|access-date=19 November 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090120133149/http://orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm|archive-date=20 January 2009|url-status=live}}</ref>

Under the influence of the Catholic Church, the divorce rate had been greatly reduced by the 9th or 10th century,<ref>''Kent's Commentaries on American Law'', p. 96 (14th ed. 1896))</ref> which considered marriage a [[sacrament]] instituted by [[Jesus Christ]] and indissoluble by mere human action.<ref>[[Canon law|Canons]] of the [[Council of Trent]], Twenty-fourth Session.
{{Cite book
 |chapter-url=http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html
 |access-date=2006-09-18
 |year=1848
 |publisher=London: Dolman
 |pages=192–232
 |title=The Council of Trent
 |chapter=The Twenty-Fourth Session
 |archive-date=28 September 2020
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200928143723/https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html/
 |url-status=live
 }}</ref>

Although divorce, as known today, was generally prohibited in Catholic lands after the 10th century, separation of husband and wife and the [[annulment]] of marriage were well known. What is today referred to as "[[separate maintenance]]" (or "[[legal separation]]") was termed "divorce a mensa et thoro" ("divorce from bed-and-board"). The husband and wife physically separated and were forbidden to live or [[cohabit]] together, but their marital relationship did not fully terminate.<ref>''Kent's Commentaries on American Law'', p. 125, n. 1 (14th ed. 1896).</ref> [[Civil courts]] had no power over marriage or divorce. The grounds for annulment were determined by a Catholic church authority and applied in [[ecclesiastical courts]]. Annulment was for [[Canon law|canonical]] causes of impediment existing at the time of the marriage. "For in cases of total divorce, the marriage is declared null, as having been absolutely unlawful ab initio."<ref>W. Blackstone, ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'', 428 (Legal Classics Library spec. ed. 1984).</ref><ref>''Kent's Commentaries on American Law'', p. 1225, n. 1.</ref><ref>E.Coke, ''Institutes of the Laws of England'', 235 (Legal Classics Library spec. ed. 1985).</ref> The Catholic Church held that the sacrament of marriage produced one person from two, inseparable from each other: "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything."<ref>Blackstone, ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'', p. 435 (Legal Classics Library spec. ed. 1984.</ref> Since husband and wife became one person upon marriage, recognition of that oneness could be rescinded only on the grounds that the unity never existed to begin with, ''i.e.'', that the proclamation of marriage was erroneous and void [[Ab initio|from the start]].

===Secularisation in Europe===
[[File:1491 Henry VIII.jpg|thumb|[[Henry VIII]] of England broke with the [[Catholic Church]] in order to obtain an annulment.]]
After the [[Reformation]], marriage came to be considered a [[contract]] in the newly Protestant regions of Europe, and on that basis, [[civil authorities]] gradually asserted their power to decree a "divortium a vinculo matrimonii", or "divorce from all the bonds of marriage".

Since no [[precedents]] existed defining the circumstances under which marriage could be dissolved, civil courts heavily relied on the previous determinations of the [[ecclesiastic]] courts and freely adopted the requirements set down by those courts. As the civil courts assumed the power to dissolve marriages, courts still strictly construed the circumstances under which they would grant a divorce,<ref>Blackstone, ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'', p. 429.</ref> and considered divorce to be contrary to [[public policy (law)|public policy]]. Because divorce was considered to be against the public interest, civil courts refused to grant a divorce if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between the husband and wife to divorce, or if they attempted to manufacture grounds for a divorce. Divorce was granted only because one party to the marriage had violated a sacred [[vow]] to the "innocent spouse". If both husband and wife were guilty, "neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage".<ref>''Kent's Commentaries on American Law'', p. 401.</ref>

Eventually, the idea that a marriage could be dissolved in cases in which one of the parties violated the sacred vow gradually allowed expansion of the grounds upon which divorce could be granted from those grounds which existed at the time of the marriage to grounds which occurred after the marriage, but which exemplified violation of that vow, such as [[Grounds for divorce (United States)#Abandonment or desertion|abandonment]], [[adultery]], or "extreme cruelty".<ref>''Kent's Commentaries on American Law'', p. 147.</ref> An exception to this trend was the [[Anglican Church]], which maintained the doctrine of marital indissolubility.

During the [[English Civil War]], the [[Puritans]] briefly passed a law that divested marriage of all sacrament, leaving it as a secular contract that could be broken. [[John Milton]] wrote [[Milton's divorce tracts|four divorce tracts]] in 1643–1645 that argued for the legitimacy of divorce on grounds of spousal incompatibility. His ideas were ahead of their time; arguing for divorce at all, let alone a version of [[no-fault divorce]], was extremely controversial and religious figures sought to ban his tracts.<ref>{{cite book|author=D. F. McKenzie|chapter=The London Book Trade in 1644|title=Making Meaning: Printers of the Mind and Other Essays|publisher=University of Massachusetts Press|year=2002|pages=140–1|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HtUfy7-OC1YC|isbn=978-1558493360}}</ref> In 1670 a precedent was first set with an [[Act of Parliament]] allowing Lord [[John Manners, 1st Duke of Rutland|John Manners]] to divorce his wife, [[Anne Manners, Lady Roos|Lady Anne Pierrepont]], and until the passage of the [[Matrimonial Causes Act 1857]], divorce could only be obtained through a specific Act of Parliament.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html |title=HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION |author=Erwin J. Haeberle |publisher=The Continuum Publishing Company |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515233113/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html |archive-date=2013-05-15 }}</ref>

[[File:Le divorce de l'Impératrice Joséphine 15 décembre 1809 (Henri-Frederic Schopin).jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|left|[[Joséphine de Beauharnais|Joséphine]], first wife of [[Napoleon]], obtained the civil dissolution of her marriage under the [[Napoleonic Code]] of 1804.]]
The move towards secularisation and liberalisation was reinforced by the individualistic and secular ideals of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]. The [[Enlightened absolutism|Enlightened absolutist]], King [[Frederick II of Prussia|Frederick II]] ("the Great") of [[Prussia]] decreed a new divorce law in 1752, in which marriage was declared to be a purely private concern, allowing divorce to be granted on the basis of mutual consent. This new attitude heavily influenced the law in neighbouring [[Austrian Empire|Austria]] under Emperor [[Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor|Joseph II]], where it was applied to all non-Catholic Imperial subjects.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2548&context=lcp|title=Trends in marriage and divorce law of Western countries|author=Max Rheinstein|author-link=Max Rheinstein|access-date=2013-12-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203032903/http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2548&context=lcp|archive-date=2013-12-03|url-status=live}}</ref> Divorce was legalised in France after the [[French Revolution]] on a similar basis, although the legal order of the [[ancien regime]] was reinstated at the [[Bourbon Restoration in France|Bourbon restoration]] of 1816. The trend in Europe throughout the 19th century, was one of increased liberalisation; by the mid-19th century, divorce was generally granted by civil courts in the case of [[adultery]].
[[File:Marilyn Monroe and Jerry Giesler 3.jpg|thumb|upright=1.15|[[Marilyn Monroe]] signing divorce papers with celebrity attorney [[Jerry Giesler]].]]

In Britain, before 1857 wives were regarded as under the economic and legal protection of their husbands, and divorce was almost impossible. It required a very expensive private Act of Parliament costing perhaps £200, of the sort only the richest could possibly afford. It was very difficult to secure divorce on the grounds of adultery, desertion, or cruelty. The first key legislative victory came with the [[Matrimonial Causes Act 1857]], which passed over the strenuous opposition of the highly traditional Church of England. The new law made divorce a civil affair of the courts, rather than a Church matter, with a new civil court in London handling all cases. The process was still quite expensive, at about £40, but now became feasible for the middle class. A woman who obtained a judicial separation took the status of a ''feme sole'', with full control of her own civil rights. Additional amendments came in 1878, which allowed for separations handled by local justices of the peace. The Church of England blocked further reforms until the final breakthrough came with the [[Matrimonial Causes Act 1973]].<ref>Lawrence Stone. ''Road to Divorce: England 1530–1987'' (1990)</ref><ref>Elie Halevy, ''History of the English People: The Rule of Democracy (1905–1914)'' (1932) pp</ref>

In [[Spain]], the 1931 Constitution of the [[Second Spanish Republic]] for the first time recognised a right to divorce. The first law to regulate divorce was the ''Divorce Act of 1932'', which passed the Republican Parliament despite the opposition of the Catholic Church and a coalition of the Agrarian Minority and Minority Basque-Navarre Catholic parties. The dictatorship of General Franco abolished the law. After the restoration of democracy, a new divorce law was passed in 1981, again over the opposition of the Catholic Church and part of the Christian Democrat party, then a part of the ruling Union of Democratic Center. During the first socialist government of [[Felipe González Márquez]], the 1981 law was amended to expedite the process of separation and divorce of marriages, which was again opposed by the Church, which called it "express divorce".

In [[Italy]], the first divorce law was introduced on 1 December 1970, despite the opposition of the [[Christian Democrats]],<ref>Law n. 898/70 (1 December 1970) – "Discipline of the cases of dissolution of marriage".</ref> and entered into force on 18 December 1970. In the following years, the Christian Democrats, supported also by parties opposed to the law, promoted a recall referendum. In 1974, in a referendum, the majority of the population voted against a repeal of the divorce law. A feature of the 1970 divorce law was the long period of marital separation of five years required. This period was reduced to three in 1987 and to a year in 2015, in the case of judicial separation, and six months in the case of separation by mutual agreement.

[[Ireland]] and [[Malta]] approved divorce at referendums in 1995 and 2011 respectively.

Divorce rates increased markedly during the 20th century in developed countries, as social attitudes towards family and sex changed dramatically.<ref>{{cite web|title=Divorce|url=http://www.oocities.org/totojunmar/divorce.html|website=Oocities.org|access-date=3 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002256/http://www.oocities.org/totojunmar/divorce.html|archive-date=3 December 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> Divorce has become commonplace in some countries, including the [[United States]],<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/19/15-ways-to-predict-divorce.html |title=15 Ways to Predict Divorce |website=[[The Daily Beast]] |date=19 May 2010 |access-date=2012-09-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120920052827/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/19/15-ways-to-predict-divorce.html |archive-date=2012-09-20 |url-status=live |last1=Rufus |first1=Anneli }}</ref> [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[Germany]], [[New Zealand]], [[Scandinavia]], and the [[United Kingdom]].<ref name="Haines">{{cite web|last1=Haines|first1=Nicola|title=Divorces in England and Wales: 2015|url=https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2015|website=Office for National Statistics UK|access-date=16 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180217082644/https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2015|archive-date=17 February 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Japan===
In the Edo Period (1603–1868), husbands could divorce their wives by writing letters of divorce. Frequently, their relatives or marriage arrangers kept these letters and tried to restore the marriages. Wives could not divorce their husbands. Some wives were able to gain sanctuary in certain [[Shinto]] "divorce temples".  After a wife had spent three years in a temple, her husband was required to divorce her.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20040619f1.html |title=Japan Times |date=2004-06-19 |access-date=2010-06-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719050351/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20040619f1.html |archive-date=2011-07-19 |url-status=live }}</ref> In 19th century Japan, at least one in eight marriages ended in divorce.

There are four types of divorce in Japan: divorce by agreement in which the divorce is mutual; divorce by mediation, which happens in family court; divorce by decision of family court that takes place when a couple cannot complete a divorce through mediation; and divorce by judgment of a district court.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/acs/tacs-7117.html |title=American Citizen Services- Divorce In Japan |access-date=2011-09-11 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110909122201/http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/acs/tacs-7117.html |archive-date=2011-09-09 }}</ref>

===India===
On a national level, the [[Special Marriage Act, 1954|Special Marriage Act]], passed in 1954, is an inter-religious marriage law permitting Indian nationals to marry and divorce irrespective of their religion or faith. The [[Hindu Marriage Act]], 1955 legally permitted divorce to Hindus and other communities who chose to marry under these acts. The Indian Divorce Act 1869<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gujhealth.gov.in/images/pdf/legis/divorce-act1869.pdf |title=Indian Divorce Act -Bare Act |year=1869 |website=Gujhealth.gov.in |access-date=2014-02-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130421015224/http://www.gujhealth.gov.in/images/pdf/legis/divorce-act1869.pdf |archive-date=2013-04-21 |url-status=live }}</ref> is the law relating to the divorce of person professing the Christian religion. Divorce can be sought by a husband or wife on grounds including adultery, cruelty, desertion for two years, religious conversion, mental abnormality, venereal disease, and leprosy.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/hindumarriageact/s13.htm |title=''Vaklino.com'' - "The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955" (Section 13) |website=Vakilno1.com |access-date=2012-03-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120401144955/http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/hindumarriageact/s13.htm |archive-date=2012-04-01 }}</ref> Divorce is also available based on mutual consent of both the spouses, which can be filed after at least one year of separated living. Mutual consent divorce cannot be appealed, and the law mandates a minimum period of six months (from the time divorce is applied for) for divorce to be granted.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/439618/ |title=''indiankanoon.org'' - "Section 13B in the Hindu Marriage Act" |website=Indiankanoon.org |access-date=2012-03-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402034011/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/439618/ |archive-date=2012-04-02 |url-status=live }}</ref> Contested divorce is when one of the spouses is not willing to divorce the other; in such a circumstance divorce is granted only on certain grounds according to the Hindu marriage act of 1955. While a Muslim husband can unilaterally bring an end to the marriage by pronouncing talaq,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://parting.hpage.co.in/muslim-divorce-judgements_56052365.html |title=Muslim divorce judgements |website=Parting.hpage.co.in |access-date=2014-02-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222142037/http://parting.hpage.co.in/muslim-divorce-judgements_56052365.html |archive-date=2014-02-22 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Muslim women must go to court, claiming any of the grounds provided under the [[Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939|Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chdslsa.gov.in/right_menu/act/pdf/muslim.pdf|title=Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act - bare Act|website=Chdslsa.gov.in|access-date=2014-02-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221172043/http://chdslsa.gov.in/right_menu/act/pdf/muslim.pdf|archive-date=2014-02-21|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the first major family law reform in the last decade, the Supreme Court of India banned the Islamic practice of "Triple Talaq" (divorce by uttering of the "Talaq" word thrice by the husband). The landmark Supreme Court of India judgment was welcomed by women activists across India.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/22/india-supreme-court-bans-islamic-instant-divorce-triple-talaq|title=India court bans Islamic instant divorce in huge win for women's rights|last=Safi|first=Michael|date=2017-08-22|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=2017-11-06|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171116194439/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/22/india-supreme-court-bans-islamic-instant-divorce-triple-talaq|archive-date=2017-11-16|url-status=live}}</ref>

Official figures of divorce rates are not available, but it has been estimated that 1 in 100 or another figure of 11 in 1,000 marriages in India end in divorce.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10284416 |title=India moves to make it easier to divorce |access-date=2011-09-11 |publisher=BBC News |date=2010-06-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110825083800/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10284416 |archive-date=2011-08-25 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Various communities are governed by specific marital legislation, distinct to Hindu Marriage Act, and consequently have their own divorce laws:

* The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/122564/ |title=The Parsi Marriage And Divorce Act, 1936 |website=Indiankanoon.org |access-date=2012-03-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120326174531/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/122564/ |archive-date=2012-03-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage act, 1939<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1458498/ |title=The Dissolution Of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 |website=Indiankanoon.org |access-date=2012-03-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120326174535/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1458498/ |archive-date=2012-03-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/660591/ |title=The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 |website=Indiankanoon.org |access-date=2012-03-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120326174651/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/660591/ |archive-date=2012-03-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986<ref>{{cite book|author1=V.R.Krishna Iyer Retd. Judge|title=Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986|year=1987|publisher=EBC|isbn=978-81-7012-349-1|pages=1–166}}</ref>

An amendment to the marriage laws to allow divorce based on "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" (as alleged by one of the spouses) is under consideration in India.<ref>{{cite news |last=Chandran |first=Rina |url=http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/06/11/an-easier-end-to-unhappy-marriages-in-india/ |title=An easier end to unhappy marriages in India? &#124; India Insight |website=Blogs.reuters.com |date=2010-06-11 |access-date=2012-03-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110508165627/http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/06/11/an-easier-end-to-unhappy-marriages-in-india/ |archive-date=2011-05-08 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In June 2010, the Union Cabinet of India approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010, which, if cleared by Parliament, would establish "irretrievable breakdown" as a new ground for divorce.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=62464 |title=Press Information Bureau English Releases |website=Pib.nic.in |access-date=2012-03-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119204450/http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=62464 |archive-date=2012-01-19 |url-status=live }}</ref> Under the proposed amendment, the court before proceeding to the merits of the case must be satisfied by the evidences produced that parties have been living apart for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.ipleaders.in/irretrievable-break-down-of-marriage-as-a-ground-for-divorce-in-india |title=Irretrievable break down of marriage as a ground for divorce in India |date=3 December 2014 |publisher=iPleaders |access-date=2014-12-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141209141854/http://blog.ipleaders.in/irretrievable-break-down-of-marriage-as-a-ground-for-divorce-in-india/ |archive-date=2014-12-09 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Islamic law ===
{{Main|Divorce in Islam}}
Divorce in Islam can take a variety of forms, some initiated by the husband and some initiated by the wife. The main traditional legal categories are ''talaq'' ([[repudiation (marriage)|repudiation]]), ''khulʿ'' (mutual divorce/annulment), judicial divorce and oaths. The theory and practice of divorce in the Islamic world have varied according to time and place.<ref name=OEIW-modern>{{cite encyclopedia|author=Maaike Voorhoeve|title=Divorce. Modern Practice|encyclopedia=The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|year=2013|url-access=subscription|url=http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199764464.001.0001/acref-9780199764464-e-0108|doi=10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199764464.001.0001|isbn=9780199764464|access-date=2017-03-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204102020/http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199764464.001.0001/acref-9780199764464-e-0108|archive-date=2017-02-04|url-status=live}}</ref> Historically, the rules of divorce were governed by [[sharia]], as interpreted by [[Fiqh|traditional Islamic jurisprudence]], and they differed depending on the [[Madhhab|legal school]].<ref name=OEIW-hist>{{cite encyclopedia|author=Maaike Voorhoeve|title=Divorce. Historical Practice|encyclopedia=The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|year=2013|url-access=subscription|url=http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199764464.001.0001/acref-9780199764464-e-0108|doi=10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199764464.001.0001|isbn=9780199764464|access-date=2017-03-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204102020/http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199764464.001.0001/acref-9780199764464-e-0108|archive-date=2017-02-04|url-status=live}}</ref> Historical practice sometimes diverged from legal theory.<ref name=OEIW-hist/> In modern times, as personal status (family) laws were codified, they generally remained "within the orbit of Islamic law", but control over the norms of divorce shifted from traditional jurists to the state.<ref name=OEIW-modern/>

===Philippines===
Divorce as a means of terminating marriage is illegal for all Filipinos except [[Filipino Muslim]]s. There is only civil annulment after a lengthy legal separation. The process is costly and long, and there are many legally married couples in extramarital relations, even without a divorce law.

Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, known as Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1083, Title II- Marriage and Divorce, Chapter 3-Divorce allows for divorce recognized by the state. There are two [[sharia]] courts in the Philippine judicial system that hear these cases.

On 27 July 2010, [[GABRIELA|Gabriela Women's Party]] filed in [[House of Representatives of the Philippines|Congress]] House Bill No 1799, or the Divorce Bill of the Philippines, as one of many attempts to introduce pro-divorce legislation. Senator [[Pia Cayetano]] has filed a separate divorce bill in the [[Senate of the Philippines|Senate]]. During that time, the Philippines, along with Malta and the Vatican, are the three most conservative countries on the issue of divorce. The bill did not pass any level of legislation because of this.

In 2013, the divorce bill was refiled, and did not pass any level of legislation as well.

In a latest attempt, the divorce bill was refiled again in 2017. On 22 February 2018, the House of Representatives committee on population and family relations approved a bill seeking to legalize divorce, the first time in Philippine history for such a measure to pass the committee level of legislation. The majority of the members of the House of Representatives (lower house of Congress), both majority and minority blocs, are in favor of divorce, however, divorce continues to be a divisive issue in the Senate (upper house of Congress), as stark opposition is present among male senators.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/02/21/house-panel-approves-substitute-bill-on-divorce.html|title=House panel approves substitute bill on divorce|website=Cnnphilippines.com|access-date=21 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180921191212/http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/02/21/house-panel-approves-substitute-bill-on-divorce.html|archive-date=21 September 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rappler.com/nation/196612-explainer-house-divorce-bill|title=EXPLAINER: What are the grounds, provisions in House divorce bill?|website=Rappler.com|date=22 February 2018 |access-date=21 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124221154/https://www.rappler.com/nation/196612-explainer-house-divorce-bill|archive-date=24 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Early America ===
In colonial America, marriage was understood to be for the purpose of reproductive and economic success. Divorce was granted if either party was proven to have deceived the other about their financial or reproductive status.<ref name=":7">{{Cite book |last=Reis |first=Elizabeth |title=Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex |publisher=Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-1421441849 |pages=8–10 |language=en}}</ref>

[[Impotence]] as grounds for divorce required physical examination of the husband. Women with malformed genitalia would also be examined by a midwife to determine if the malformation was responsible for infertility.<ref name=":7" />

In the [[antebellum South]], courts were reluctant to divorce white couples. Wives were the most likely to ask for divorce, however husbands were more likely to receive one. Successful divorces initiated by husbands were often in response to the wife's infidelity with a black man. A landmark court case in 1825 set the precedent of prioritizing the raising of white children over the wife's adultery.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hodes |first=Martha |title=White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the 19th-century South |publisher=New Haven, CT: Yale University Press |year=1997 |isbn=0300069707 |pages=68–71 |language=en}}</ref>

In the 1860s, marriage law changed rapidly as the definition of [[miscegenation]] was altered to account for more and different racial categories. This sometimes forced the annulment of [[Interracial marriage|mixed-race marriages]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Pascoe |first=Peggy |title=What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America |publisher=New York: Oxford University Press |year=2010 |isbn=9780199772353 |pages=77–93 |language=en}}</ref>