Divorce in Austria: Fault, the Three Routes and Post-Divorce Maintenance

Divorce in Austria runs through the Ehegesetz (EheG), the 1938 marriage law that, unlike its German counterpart, was never rebuilt around a single no-fault standard. Austria kept fault as a live legal question, not just a historical footnote, and that single fact shapes almost everything on this page: which of the three divorce routes is available, how long a separation has to last, and above all how much maintenance one spouse may owe the other after the marriage ends.

This page works through the three routes to a decree under §§ 49, 55 and 55a EheG, the separation periods each one actually requires, why the Verschuldensprinzip (fault principle) still matters even on the routes that do not require proving fault, and how §§ 66 to 68 EheG tie post-divorce maintenance directly to who was at fault. It closes with the realistic timeline and answers to the questions people search most.

Information last verified on 22 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Austrian law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

The three routes to a divorce under the EheG

Austrian law gives spouses three distinct legal paths to end a marriage, and they are not interchangeable alternatives chosen for convenience. Each has its own requirements, its own evidentiary burden, and a different relationship to the fault question that decides maintenance later.

The einvernehmliche Scheidung under § 55a EheG is the route most Austrian divorces actually take. It requires at least six months of separation, both spouses conceding the marriage has irretrievably broken down, agreement that the divorce should happen, and a written settlement signed before the court that resolves child care, contact and maintenance arrangements along with the couple's own property and maintenance claims, unless a final court decision already covers those matters.

The Verschuldensscheidung under § 49 EheG requires no waiting period at all, but it requires proving that the other spouse's conduct, described in the statute as a schwere Eheverfehlung or dishonourable or immoral behaviour, culpably and so deeply undermined the marriage that restoring it cannot be expected. The statute names marital infidelity and inflicting physical violence or serious emotional suffering as examples. A spouse whose own conduct is entangled in the same breakdown generally cannot sue on this ground against the other, since the section is built around one spouse's culpability, not a shared failure.

The Scheidung wegen Zerrüttung under § 55 EheG is the breakdown route and it runs on two separation clocks. After three years apart, either spouse may seek a divorce, but the court must still be satisfied reconciliation is unlikely, and the defendant can raise a hardship defence if the claimant is mainly at fault for the breakdown and the divorce would hit the defendant harder than refusal would hit the claimant. Courts weigh the length of the marriage, the spouses' age and health, and the welfare of any children in deciding that defence.

That hardship defence disappears entirely once six years of separation have passed. § 55 Abs 3 EheG states plainly that the divorce must be granted once the spouses have lived apart for six years, with no room left to argue that reconciliation remains possible or that the divorce would be unfairly harsh. This is an absolute backstop: a spouse cannot be kept married against their will forever, even if they were the one who caused the breakdown and even if the other spouse objects.

The fault principle: why Austria is not Germany here

This is the sharpest difference between Austrian and German divorce law, and it is worth stating plainly rather than assuming the two systems line up. Germany abolished fault-based divorce in its 1977 reform of marriage law. The only question a German court asks is whether the marriage has objectively failed; why it failed plays no role in whether the divorce is granted or, with narrow exceptions, in what follows from it.

Austria never made that change. The EheG still contains a dedicated fault-based route in § 49, and more importantly, fault survives even where the divorce itself is granted on a route that does not require proving it. A couple can divorce by consent under § 55a EheG or on the breakdown route under § 55 EheG without a court ever ruling on fault for the divorce itself, and fault can still be litigated separately where it matters: post-divorce maintenance.

A reform is under discussion but it is not law, and writing otherwise would be inaccurate. Austria's official Parliamentary Correspondence recorded Justice Minister Anna Sporrer telling the Bundesrat, in a session on 5 February 2026, that the 2025 to 2029 government programme foresees a reform of divorce law including a reworked post-divorce maintenance regime independent of fault. She said a working group of academics and practitioners has been set up to examine comparative European models, that the reform cannot be rushed, and that no timeline has been given for it. No draft bill exists as of that date.

For anyone searching "scheidung" from a German-law starting point, the practical takeaway is this: do not assume the German answer transfers. Where a German source would say fault is irrelevant to maintenance, the Austrian answer is the opposite, and getting that backwards can mean walking into a settlement negotiation with the wrong expectation about who owes whom.

What fault actually affects: post-divorce maintenance under §§ 66 to 68 EheG

During an intact marriage, § 94 ABGB governs maintenance between spouses and does not turn on fault at all; it is built around each spouse's contribution to the shared household and life, and that duty ends when the marriage does. What replaces it after a divorce is decided is a separate, fault-driven regime set out in §§ 66 to 68 EheG.

§ 66 EheG is the core rule. Where a spouse is found solely or mainly at fault for the breakdown, that spouse owes the other spouse maintenance set at the standard of living the marriage established, to the extent the other spouse's own income from assets and from work that can reasonably be expected of them does not already cover it. This is a genuine duty, not a discretionary favour, and it runs directly off the fault finding made (or not made) elsewhere in the proceeding.

§ 67 EheG puts a ceiling on that duty. A court can reduce the maintenance where paying it in full would jeopardise the paying spouse's own reasonable maintenance, and it also has to weigh the needs of the payer's other dependants. Fault decides who owes the duty; § 67 EheG decides how much of it that spouse can actually be made to pay without being pushed into hardship themselves.

§ 68 EheG covers the situation where both spouses share fault and neither is predominantly responsible. There, the spouse who cannot support themselves is not automatically entitled to full maintenance under § 66 EheG. Instead, a court may award an equitable, potentially time-limited contribution toward their support, a narrower and more discretionary entitlement than the § 66 duty. A spouse who is themselves solely or mainly at fault has no claim under either § 66 or § 68 EheG.

Illustrative scenario. Consider two spouses whose marriage ends after one of them is found, in a contested § 49 EheG proceeding, to be solely at fault through a documented affair. The other spouse, who reduced their working hours during the marriage to raise the couple's children and now earns less than the marital standard of living, would have a § 66 EheG claim against the at-fault spouse, capped under § 67 EheG at a level that still leaves the paying spouse their own reasonable maintenance.

If instead the court had found both spouses shared responsibility for the breakdown with neither predominant, the same dependent spouse's claim would fall to the narrower, discretionary § 68 EheG contribution rather than full § 66 EheG maintenance. Same facts about income and children; a different fault finding produces a materially different maintenance outcome. That is the mechanism the reform discussed above would eventually remove, and it is exactly why it has not been removed yet.

The realistic timeline

The fastest realistic path to a decree is the einvernehmliche Scheidung, and its floor is fixed by statute: six months of separation under § 55a EheG, plus the time needed to negotiate and sign the written settlement covering children and property. A couple who separates on 1 January 2026 cannot file on that route before roughly 1 July 2026, and the actual date depends on how quickly the settlement itself comes together, which is often the longer part of the process in practice.

The breakdown route has two fixed milestones worth tracking from the date separation actually begins, not the date either spouse first raises the idea of divorce. Take a couple who stop living together on 15 March 2023. The three-year mark under § 55 EheG Abs 1 falls on 15 March 2026, at which point either spouse can file, subject to the hardship defence described above. The six-year mark under § 55 Abs 3 EheG falls on 15 March 2029, at which point the divorce must be granted with no hardship defence available at all.

The fault-based route under § 49 EheG has no waiting period, so on paper it can move faster than either of the other two. In practice it is usually the slowest in contested cases, because proving a schwere Eheverfehlung and litigating who was at fault, which then feeds directly into the § 66 to § 68 EheG maintenance analysis, is a genuine evidentiary fight rather than a formality. Couples who can agree even loosely on the underlying facts are generally better served by the consensual or breakdown routes, reserving § 49 EheG for cases where agreement genuinely is not possible.