Problematic issues of divorce in court
K. V. Borovyk,M. O. Reznikova
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2022.03.11
2022-09-28
Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence
Abstract:The article examines the problematic issues of judicial divorce. Conflicting, contradictory, unresolved issues of legislative regulation of this procedure are identified, which were established on the basis of the analysis of court practice, in orderto improve the mechanism of divorce. Collisions of legal regulation of dissolution of marriage in court procedure are identified. The institution of marital reconciliation and its consequences for the divorce process between spouses are analyzed. Yes, it hasbeen determined that in practice, divorce in legal proceedings is very often used as a «circumvention» of divorce in the order of separate proceedings on the joint application of the spouses (due to clauses «d» and «o» of clause 3 of Article 3 of the Decree of the CMU «On State Duty» dated January 21, 1993), and the reconciliation procedure as prolonging the divorce process. The analysis of court practice proved that this mechanism does not contribute to the continuation of marital and family relations. Itwas concluded that, on the one hand, the legislator is interested in speedy consideration of such socially significant categories of cases as divorce, on the other hand, there are still gaps in the legislation that allow this process to be delayed. It is alsodetermined that Article 4 109 of the Family Code of Ukraine is conflicting, and the analysis of the norms of the Code of Civil Procedure, which establish and determine the procedural order of consideration of cases in courts, made it possible to conclude that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not establish special (shortened) terms for consideration of certain categories of cases in court, because in the aggregate, the terms consideration of the merits of the case in accordance with the legislation cannot guarantee a person who has applied to the court for the protection of his violated, disputed or unrecognized right of prompt resolution of the problem and contradict the norms of family legislation. The authors provided suggestions forimproving the national legislation and eliminating the above-mentioned conflicting norms.Based on the results of the analysis, the authors came to the following conclusions: 1) in order to encourage spouses to apply to a notary public with a statement on the conclusion of an agreement on alimony for a child, it is advisable to introducean exemption for parents from paying state duty when certifying such agreements by analogy with paragraph 3, Part 1, Article 5 of the Law on Court Fees, 2) by analyzing the judicial practice regarding granting spouses a period for reconciliation, it canbe concluded that, unfortunately, the institution of reconciliation does not lead to the expected results of preserving family relations, but contributes to prolonging divorce proceedings. Therefore, we propose to exclude Article 111 of the Family Code ofUkraine and Part 7 of Art. 240 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, 3) in order to eliminate the conflict between civil and family legislation, we propose to set out Part 4 of Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine in the following wording: «the court considers the case of divorce within the time limits established by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine...».