Divorce in Switzerland: Scheidung and the No Fault Grounds Explained

Swiss divorce law works from a different premise than many readers expect, especially anyone whose search results have been full of Austrian or German content. Switzerland is a no fault system. No Swiss court asks whose fault the marriage breakdown was, and no ground for divorce in the Zivilgesetzbuch requires proving misconduct by either spouse.

That single point resets almost every other expectation a cross border reader might bring in. Austria still runs a fault based Verschuldensscheidung alongside its no fault routes, so an Austrian search result can describe a genuinely different legal landscape. This page sets out the actual Swiss grounds, the separation period that matters most, and how pensions are split when a marriage ends.

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

Switzerland is a no fault divorce system

No article in the Zivilgesetzbuch's divorce chapter asks a court to find that one spouse caused the marriage's breakdown. The four operative grounds, Art. 111, 112, 114 and 115 ZGB, are built entirely around agreement and around how long the spouses have lived apart, never around blame.

This matters most for a reader whose search results skew Austrian or German. Austria still maintains its own fault based Verschuldensscheidung as a distinct route to divorce, so material written for an Austrian audience can describe allegations of marital fault as a live legal strategy. Nothing equivalent exists in Swiss divorce law, and importing that expectation into a Swiss case leads nowhere.

A fault based system elsewhere might ask a court to weigh conduct such as adultery, cruelty, or desertion before granting a divorce or setting its financial consequences. Swiss law asks none of that. Whether a marriage ends because of an affair, a slow drift apart, or a spouse's own choice to leave makes no difference to which of the four grounds applies or to how the court treats the parties once inside one of them.

What the consequences of the divorce actually cover

The German term Scheidungsfolgen, meaning the consequences of the divorce, covers everything besides the fact of divorce itself: division of marital property under the couple's matrimonial property regime, whether either spouse owes the other post divorce maintenance under Art. 125 ZGB, the Vorsorgeausgleich pension split covered further below, and the arrangements for any children. A full agreement under Art. 111 ZGB means the spouses have already resolved every one of these points themselves. A partial agreement under Art. 112 ZGB means at least one of them, commonly the maintenance amount or a disputed custody point, is left for the court to decide.

The two joint request grounds: full agreement and partial agreement

Two of the four grounds require the spouses to request divorce jointly, and the difference between them is exactly how much they have already agreed on. Art. 111 ZGB is the full agreement route, for spouses who have resolved every consequence of the divorce themselves. They jointly request the divorce and submit a complete agreement covering everything, together with the necessary supporting documents and joint requests concerning any children. The court hears them separately and together, over one or more sessions if needed, and grants the divorce once satisfied that the request and the agreement rest on free will and careful reflection, and that the arrangements for the children can be approved.

Art. 112 ZGB is the partial agreement route, for couples who agree they want to divorce and agree on some consequences, but not all of them. The spouses jointly request the divorce and declare that the court should decide only the consequences they have not agreed on themselves. The court hears them in the same way as under Art. 111 ZGB, both on the request and on whatever they have already agreed, and on their declaration that the remaining points need a judicial decision.

Where children are involved in a joint request

Both joint request routes still have to address any children of the marriage before a court will grant the divorce. Art. 111 ZGB requires the joint request to include joint requests concerning the children, and a court will only grant the divorce once it can approve those arrangements as being in the children's interest, not merely because the parents have signed off on them. Where the spouses cannot agree on custody, contact or child maintenance, those specific points can still go through the partial agreement route under Art. 112 ZGB even if everything else, such as property division, is fully settled.

This is a separate question from the divorce grounds discussed on this page. How parental responsibility is allocated is covered in full on our joint custody page, and how a child maintenance figure is actually reached is covered on our maintenance page. Neither is decided by asking which spouse is at fault, consistent with the no fault premise running through this entire area of law.

Unilateral divorce: the two year separation ground

Where one spouse wants a divorce and the other will not join a joint request, Art. 114 ZGB is the route that does not depend on the other spouse's agreement at all. A spouse can request divorce once the couple has lived apart for at least two years, counted to the point the case becomes pending or to when the spouse switches to divorce by unilateral claim.

A concrete example: a couple separates on 1 March 2024 without filing anything immediately. Either spouse can file for divorce under Art. 114 ZGB from 1 March 2026 onward, regardless of whether the other spouse agrees to end the marriage, and regardless of who moved out or why.

The hardship exception: filing before two years are up

Art. 115 ZGB exists for the case where waiting out the full two years would itself be unreasonable. A spouse can request divorce before the separation period ends if continuing the marriage cannot reasonably be expected of them, for serious reasons that are not attributable to that spouse.

The statute does not set a shorter fixed period or a checklist of qualifying reasons. It is a case by case standard applied by the court, and the reasons have to be serious and outside the requesting spouse's own responsibility, not simply a preference to finish sooner.

Commentary on Art. 115 ZGB commonly points to situations such as ongoing domestic violence or a spouse's serious, sustained abandonment of the marriage as examples of the kind of serious reason the provision is meant to reach. Naming a category is not the same as a guarantee, since the court still decides case by case whether the specific facts meet the unreasonableness standard. A spouse considering this route should expect to substantiate the reason relied on, not simply assert that waiting is inconvenient.

A repealed ground that should never appear on a Swiss divorce page

Older material sometimes cites a range running from Art. 111 through Art. 116 ZGB as if all six articles were live grounds. Art. 113 and Art. 116 ZGB were both repealed by the Swiss Civil Procedure Code, effective 1 January 2011, and neither describes anything in force today. The accurate citation for the actual grounds is Art. 111, 112, 114 and 115 ZGB, not a continuous range.

Vorsorgeausgleich: splitting occupational pension entitlements

Divorce in Switzerland also triggers a specific financial mechanism most cross border readers have not encountered before: mandatory equalization of occupational pension entitlements, the Vorsorgeausgleich. Art. 122 ZGB states the general rule directly. Entitlements from occupational pension provision built up during the marriage, up to the point divorce proceedings began, are equalized between the spouses on divorce.

Art. 123 ZGB sets the mechanical default. Each spouse's accrued vested benefits from that period, including vested benefits accounts and any advance withdrawals taken for home ownership, are split equally between the spouses. One off payments made from a spouse's own separate property under the law are excluded from that split.

A worked example helps. Two spouses marry, and one builds up a materially larger occupational pension balance during the marriage because they worked full time while the other reduced hours to care for children. On divorce, the accrued balance from the marriage period is split evenly between them under Art. 123 ZGB, regardless of whose name the pension account is in, which is precisely the point of the mechanism: unpaid caregiving during a marriage should not leave one spouse with a materially smaller retirement provision than the other.

This equalization duty is relatively recent in its current form. The current wording of Art. 122 and Art. 123 ZGB entered into force on 1 January 2017, replacing an older regime that gave courts more room to depart from an even split. The current default is deliberately more rigid, precisely to stop the split from turning into another contested, fault flavoured argument about who deserves more.

Where only one spouse has meaningful occupational pension savings from the marriage period, typically because the other worked exclusively in the home or in unpaid family care, the split still applies. The spouse holding the larger balance transfers half of the marriage period accrual to the other spouse's own pension account, which is precisely the scenario Art. 123 ZGB is built to address.

A further, more complex regime applies where a spouse is already receiving an invalidity pension before reaching the standard reference age, and that scenario sits outside the scope of this page. Anyone in that specific situation should raise it directly with a Swiss family law practitioner rather than relying on the general rule described here.

What this page does not cover

Custody arrangements for children of the marriage are governed separately, under the joint parental responsibility rules covered on our joint custody page, and are not part of the divorce grounds themselves. Child and spousal maintenance amounts are calculated under a distinct method covered on our maintenance page, which explains why Switzerland does not use a percentage of income table. For the wider cluster, see our family law hub, and for the rest of Swiss law our guide to Swiss law covers the broader picture.