Belgian Divorce: Mutual Consent, Irretrievable Breakdown and Spousal Maintenance (2026)

Belgium recognises two routes to divorce, and they are not interchangeable alternatives. One requires the spouses to have agreed everything in advance. The other depends entirely on which of three paragraphs of a single article applies to the couple's situation, and getting those paragraphs backwards tells a reader they can file when they cannot.

Both routes end at the same court, the familierechtbank, the tribunal de la famille, and both can lead to a claim for spousal maintenance under a separate article with its own, distinct set of rules.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

Two procedures, not one

Article 230 of the old Civil Code recognises divorce by mutual consent, referred to in Dutch as echtscheiding door onderlinge toestemming and in French as divorce par consentement mutuel. Its procedure sits in articles 1287 to 1304 of the Gerechtelijk Wetboek, the Code judiciaire, a separate part of the code from the irretrievable-breakdown provisions.

Articles 1287 and 1288 require the spouses to arrive at the family court with a complete written agreement already in place, covering custody arrangements, each parent's contribution to the children's upkeep, and the division of property and debts. The familierechtbank, the tribunal de la famille, then pronounces the divorce; this is a judicial act, not something completed by a notary alone. There is no age bar on either spouse and no minimum marriage duration required today.

No official source gives a typical time frame for how long this procedure takes from filing to judgment, and this page does not state one; figures circulating elsewhere on this point are not from an authority source.

Divorce on irretrievable breakdown: get the paragraphs right

Article 229 of the old Civil Code is the second route, and its three paragraphs are frequently reported in the wrong order.

Paragraph 1 lets either spouse establish the breakdown by any means, with no waiting period at all. This is the route available immediately, provided the breakdown itself can actually be shown.

Paragraph 2 is a joint request, available once the spouses have already lived apart for more than six months.

Paragraph 3 is a unilateral request, available to one spouse acting alone, once more than one year of separation has passed.

Reversing paragraphs 2 and 3, treating the joint route as the one-year route or the unilateral route as the six-month route, tells a reader the wrong filing date, which is exactly the error this page is written to avoid.

Article 1255 of the Gerechtelijk Wetboek adds a mechanism that matters in practice: a spouse can file before the six-month or one-year period has actually run. The court does not reject the filing; it reschedules the hearing to just after the deadline expires. What happens at that hearing differs by route, and the difference matters. On the six-month joint route, article 1255 §1 requires that the parties confirm their wish, so both must still be willing. On the one-year unilateral route, article 1255 §2 provides that the judge pronounces the divorce if one of the parties requests it, so the spouse who filed does not need the other to agree. Paragraph 5 confirms that the article 229 Paragraph 1 route allows a divorce sans délai, without any waiting period, once breakdown is actually proven.

The family court

Both procedures end in the same place. The familierechtbank, the tribunal de la famille, is a specialised section within the rechtbank van eerste aanleg, the tribunal de première instance, established under article 76 Paragraph 1 of the Gerechtelijk Wetboek, and it has operated in every judicial district since 1 September 2014.

Spousal maintenance: three separate fault mechanisms

A divorce can also produce a claim for spousal maintenance under article 301 of the old Civil Code, and its rules are more structured than a single blended fault test.

The claim is capped in amount at one third of the paying spouse's income, under paragraph 3, and capped in duration at the length of the marriage itself, under paragraph 4. Where the recipient remains genuinely in need through no fault of their own once that period ends, an exceptional-circumstances extension is available. Amounts are indexed to the consumer price index and adjusted every twelve months under paragraph 6, and paragraph 3 also lets a court make the maintenance degressive over time.

Fault changes the outcome through three separate mechanisms, and treating them as one rule misstates the law:

First, paragraph 2 lets the court refuse maintenance entirely where the claimant committed a serious fault, a faute grave, that made continued cohabitation impossible. Refusal on this ground requires that specific finding; it is not a general fault test.

Second, and separately, paragraph 2 also imposes an absolute bar on maintenance where the claimant was convicted of certain criminal offences committed against the paying spouse. This is a distinct, narrower ground from the first.

Third, paragraph 5 allows the court to refuse or reduce maintenance, on different grounds again, where the claimant's own need resulted from their unilateral and unjustified choice, rather than from any fault connected to the marriage's breakdown.

These three mechanisms operate independently. A case can fail under one and succeed under another, and treating them as a single combined fault standard is not applying article 301 correctly.

This page provides general legal information about a foreign legal system and does not constitute legal advice for an individual case. Divorce depends on the specific facts of each marriage, and the underlying law changes from time to time. Check the current text on ejustice.just.fgov.be and justice.belgium.be, or consult a lawyer, before acting on anything here.