Ningbo sued several times before the court ruled for divorce.

"Do you have to sue twice before you can get a divorce?" This is the most common question in divorce counseling. Many parties, upon hearing that “the court will grant a divorce on the second filing,” eagerly await their second lawsuit. However, it is not uncommon for an application to be rejected a second time after having been initially rejected. The conclusion first said: the law does not stipulate that "divorce must be ordered several times", and the only criterion for divorce is "the relationship has indeed broken down"; However, there is a definite rule-after the people's court has ruled that divorce is not allowed, the two parties have been separated for one year, and if one party files divorce proceedings again, the court shall grant divorce. In other words, instead of counting the number of prosecutions, it is better to focus on the evidence of "emotional breakdown.

1. Breakdown criteria analysis: The complete logic of Article 1079 of the Civil Code

Article 1,079 of the Civil Code provides: “If one spouse requests a divorce, mediation may be conducted by the relevant organization, or the party may directly file a divorce lawsuit with the People’s Court.” In handling divorce cases, the people's court shall conduct mediation; if the relationship has indeed broken down and mediation is invalid, the divorce shall be granted. Divorce shall be granted if mediation fails under any of the following circumstances: (1) bigamy or cohabitation with others; (II) domestic violence or abuse or abandonment of family members; (III) gambling, drug abuse and other bad habits do not change after repeated education; the (IV) has been separated for two years due to emotional discord; (V) other circumstances that lead to the breakdown of the relationship between husband and wife. After the people's court has ruled that divorce is not allowed, the two parties have been separated for one year, and one party files divorce proceedings again, the divorce shall be granted."

split the articles into three layers to understand: the first layer, the number of prosecutions is not an essential element, and the law has never stipulated that "the number of prosecutions must be divorced"-the core of the judge's discretion is always "whether the feelings have indeed broken down and whether the mediation is invalid"; the second layer, the four types of statutory situations listed in the third paragraph + the fifth paragraph "separate for one year" belongs to the rigid rule of "should be divorced, once the facts are established and the evidence is solid, the court must make a decision and there is no room for discretion. At the third level, if it is not listed, it will return to the substantive examination of" emotional breakdown ", with large differences in individual cases. Therefore, the question of "how many prosecutions can be separated" is in the wrong direction. the correct question is "what kind of facts do I fall in and whether the evidence is enough".

2. the four types of statutory situations and the main points of the rule of "separation for one year"

Key points of proof for the four categories of statutory situations have been detailed in the previous article, and three rules related to "number of times" are emphasized here:

1. in accordance with the statutory circumstances, the first prosecution should be sentenced to leave-- If the facts such as bigamy, domestic violence and separation for two years are established and the mediation is invalid, the court will decide the divorce immediately after the first lawsuit, and there is no "must wait for the second time".
2. After the decision is not allowed to divorce, "after separation for one year, the court should decide to leave."—This is the most reliable new avenue provided by the Civil Code: after a divorce judgment takes effect and the couple has lived separately for one full year, if one party files another divorce suit, the court shall grant the divorce. The key is that the two prerequisites of "no divorce is allowed by judgment" + "separation for one year" are met at the same time, and the separation must be continuous and well documented.
3. Repetition Restriction for Six Months (Item 7 of Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Law)-- Divorce cases that are not allowed to be divorced and reconciled through mediation are not accepted if there is no new situation or new reason, and the plaintiff sues again within six months. This explains "why it has to wait half a year for the first non-judgment"-but after half a year, the lawsuit still returns to the emotional breakdown review, which may not necessarily lead to a judgment of divorce. However, the "one-year separation after the judgment" directly triggers the judgment of divorce. The certainty of the two paths is completely different.

How 3. Judges Determine "The Affection Is Indeed Broken": Four Dimensions

The Supreme People's Court issued in 1989 "Several Specific Opinions on How People's Courts Determine that the Relationship between Husband and Wife Has Indeed Broken in Divorce Cases" (Fa (Min) Fa [1989] No. 38) proposed to make a comprehensive judgment from four aspects, which was still referred to and applied by the courts in the era of Civil Code: ① The basis of marriage-free love or hasty marriage, the degree of understanding before marriage; ② Feelings after marriage-emotional status, personality integration, economic cooperation and child rearing during the period of living together; ③ Divorce causes-infidelity, domestic violence, gambling, long-term separation and other direct incentives; ④ The current situation of the relationship between husband and wife and the possibility of harmony-the actual state of getting along after the dispute, whether there are subjective and objective conditions for harmony. The indictment and the trial statement are organized around these four dimensions, which can move the referee more than repeatedly emphasizing "I 've had enough.

The actual operation time line after the 4.'s first non-judgment

1. 0-6 months after judgment: Upon the judgment becoming effective, separate residence shall commence immediately, and the period of separation shall begin to be calculated; retain evidence of separation (lease agreement, bank transfer records, community certification, chat logs); absent any new circumstances or grounds, refrain from filing another lawsuit within six months (as it may be dismissed).
2. 6 months -1 year: For those who have been separated for six months, they can consider to prosecute again based on new situations such as "continuous separation + no possibility of peace" (new situations and new reasons can break through the six-month limit), but it is safer to follow the route of "separation for one year"; at this stage, they can organize the second prosecution materials and new evidence simultaneously.
3. After a year of separation: immediately sue again, citing the fifth paragraph of Article 1079 of the Civil Code, claiming that the court "should" grant divorce -- this is the most definite way to grant divorce at present.

Two inapplicable situations need to be paid attention to: First, if the first lawsuit is ruled not to be accepted or treated as withdrawn, and has not experienced the "judgment not to divorce", the fifth paragraph will not be directly applied to the lawsuit after one year of separation, and the review will still be based on emotional breakdown; Second, if the two parties make up and resume their common life (cohabitation, traveling together, and resuming their husband and wife's life) during the separation period, the separation time will be interrupted.

Evidence organization and psychological expectation of the first prosecution of 5.

The goal of the first prosecution is not only to "judge the departure", but also to pave the way for the follow-up path. Three things should be done simultaneously:

1. fix the "starting point of separation"-- no matter whether the divorce can be judged for the first time or not, the evidence of separation should be prepared during the prosecution: the rental contract of moving out of the common residence, the description of the time of moving out, and the running record of living independently after separation. The judgment does not allow the separation of one year after the divorce, from the actual separation after the judgment takes effect, and the mark left at the prosecution stage can be proved by "one year.
2. Organize evidence around statutory circumstances instead of listing grievances-- "hard evidence" such as alarm record, warning letter, punishment decision, hospital diagnosis, rental contract, payment flow, debt collection record, etc. are given priority; emotional long statements have limited proof in court.
3. Maintain a pragmatic expectation for the "first divorce"—Nationwide, the rate of first-instance divorce judgments is not high, as courts rigorously examine whether “the marital relationship has indeed broken down.” Treating the first lawsuit as a step to establish the facts and initiate the proceedings, rather than expecting an immediate and definitive outcome, allows the process to move forward more smoothly.

(example, fiction) deduction: Liu sued for divorce for the first time, claiming that her husband was in debt for gambling and the two parties lived apart for half a year. Because the evidence was only his unilateral statement and the husband showed his willingness to correct it, the court ruled that divorce was not allowed. After the judgment came into effect, Liu moved out to rent another house, keeping the rental contract, water and electricity payment and independent living water. One year later, he sued again and invoked the fifth paragraph of Article 1079. At the same time, he submitted the punishment record of his husband's participation in gambling again. The court decided to grant the divorce. This example illustrates that it is not alarming if a divorce is initially denied; the key lies in establishing “evidence of separate living” after the initial ruling and presenting “new evidence” when filing a subsequent lawsuit—only by pursuing both avenues can one ultimately achieve a divorce.

6. Checklist for Documenting Separation Evidence

Separation evidence is the life gate of the path of "separation should be sentenced to leave after one year", and it is recommended to fix: ① the lease contract, deposit and rent payment flow, water, electricity and gas payment records of additional rental house; ② the change record of household registration or residence registration (Zhejiang can check the residence permit processing information);③ the chat record and written agreement of both parties to confirm the reason and time of separation; ④ Witness testimony (the perception of neighbors, colleagues and relatives on the status and time of separation);⑤ Evidence of independent living and financial separation during separation (AA consumption and independent billing);⑥ The recording or text of the other party's admission of separation. At the same time, attention should be paid to avoid: during the period of separation, traveling together, living in the same room, restoring the life of husband and wife, etc., the separation will be interrupted and re-calculated-"separation" is not "separation", but the actual disintegration of the community of life.

The "Battlefield" of 7. Emotional Breakdown: How to Deal with Reconciled Evidence

The dispute of judgment and departure is not only "proof of rupture", but also to guard against the evidence of "good feelings" thrown by the other side. There are four points of attack and defense:

1. The "good evidence" commonly used by the other party": photos of traveling together, records of dining together, consumption during living together, chat records of the other party expressing concern, and images of visiting children together. The proof logic of these materials is that "the two sides still have a common life and emotional exchange".
2. My thoughts of refuting: ① Time orientation-whether the above behaviors occur before or after domestic violence and separation, and whether there are helpless elements in the behaviors afterwards (such as dealing with children's affairs together);② Nature orientation-occasional transactional contact is not equal to restoring the relationship between husband and wife, and the separation in the legal sense is not interrupted by "a short meeting for children's affairs; ③ Evidence confrontation-using alarm records, separated rental water, independent living records to hedge the appearance of" harmony. It is important to avoid emotional denial of facts and to make it clear that "facts exist but are of a different nature.
3. Avoid the "fake and good" trap: After the first failure to judge the divorce, the other party redeems it with "guarantee to correct". If he is credulous and resumes the common life, the time of separation will return to zero and the complaint will return to the origin. Repairing feelings is a choice, but if you want to divorce, you must insist on "leaving a mark of separation" and not accept the suspended state of "verbal harmony and actual cold violence.
4. the strategy of expressing the position in mediation: when the court mediates, it clearly expresses that "the feelings have indeed broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation", and at the same time, it shows that it is open to the solution of property children-to separate the expression of "resolute divorce" and "pragmatic division", which not only conforms to the identification requirements of invalid mediation, but also avoids being misread as impulsive.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Will the divorce court be sure to give a divorce for the second time?

Not necessarily. The probability of divorce in the second prosecution is high, but the court still has to review whether the relationship is broken; if there is no new evidence and new facts, it may still not be sentenced. "The judgment is not allowed to divorce after a year of separation and then sue" is the definitive path that should be sentenced to leave.

The more the number of prosecutions, the greater the probability of judgment?

No. The number of prosecutions is not a legal standard, the key is whether each prosecution can provide new evidence of emotional breakdown. Repeated prosecutions on the same grounds without incremental evidence may still result in a court of law.

Does the court have to leave the separation for one year?

must meet the premise: "after divorce is not allowed by the people's court" after the separation for one year and then sue again. If the first prosecution is not accepted or is treated as withdrawn, this clause does not apply and emotional breakdown still needs to be reviewed. The separation also needs to be "due to emotional discord" and continuous.

The first time the prosecution was withdrawn, how long can it be prosecuted again?

According to the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, if there is no new situation or new reason for the divorce cases that are withdrawn or handled according to the withdrawal, and if they are prosecuted again within six months, they will not be accepted according to Item 7 of Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Law; if there are new circumstances and new reasons (such as the other party's domestic violence and transfer of property), they can sue again at any time.

If the other party expresses its willingness to make peace in the lawsuit, will the court not give a divorce?

It is possible. The invalidity of mediation is one of the elements of divorce. If the other party expresses its willingness to correct and reconcile in court, the court may decide that there is still a possibility of reconciliation and the divorce is not allowed. At this time, we should insist on giving evidence around the legal facts that have occurred, and do a good job of the first non-judgment after separation.

9. Practical Insights from a Lawyer

The question of whether the second prosecution must be divorced is biased from the beginning. The law does not have the rule that several prosecutions must be sentenced to leave. Whether the sentence or not depends on whether the feelings have indeed broken down and the mediation is invalid. What is really certain is another matter: after the decision is not allowed to divorce, the two parties have been separated for another year, and if one party sues again, the divorce should be granted. Instead of counting the number of times, it is better to spend time on proving the fact of rupture, fixing the evidence belonging to the legal situation and the fact of separation as soon as possible, which is the way to make the second prosecution secure.

In the first prosecution, the organization of evidence is much more important than the expression of emotion. Where statutory circumstances apply, the evidence must form a coherent chain: police report receipts, warning letters, and medical records should all point to domestic violence; persistent patterns of gambling or drug abuse must be documented; and separation must be supported by objective evidence, such as separate rental agreements, utility and property management records, certificates from the residents’ committee or employer, and chat logs demonstrating the parties’ separation. It is common for a court to deny a divorce on the first attempt; there is no need to blame yourself. Instead, view it as an opportunity to understand the other party’s position and the judge’s key concerns. After the ruling, promptly begin addressing the missing pieces rather than simply waiting.

After the first dismissal, the continuity of the separation is especially important. The biggest mistake is to test the waters or be overly accommodating—moving back in for a few days or even sharing a room can be used by the other party as evidence that you are still living together, thereby disrupting the timeline of your separation and undoing all previous efforts. The correct approach is to enter into a stable state of separation immediately upon the judgment becoming effective, while keeping records of everyday interactions to avoid leaving any evidence of cohabitation. At the same time, you should also anticipate the other party’s attempts to present a favorable image—for example, suddenly acting friendly or enlisting relatives and friends to testify that your relationship is still good. Be prepared in advance with factual responses to such scenarios, rather than simply reacting passively.

Prosecuting divorce is not a "number game", but a combination of "situation + evidence + time": before the first prosecution, find out the accurate position of facts according to Article 1079, and make solid evidence of separation, domestic violence, bad habits and so on;For those who have not been sentenced for the first time, they will immediately separate and leave continuous marks. After one year of separation, they will invoke the fifth paragraph "should be sentenced to divorce". This is the most reliable timetable at present. Be cautious of the other party’s “make-up” gestures; resuming cohabitation will reset the separation period to zero.

Finally, add a group of tips about the "chain of evidence for re-litigation": after the first judgment is not allowed to divorce, it is suggested to make the separation status a "visual timeline"-the date of moving out, the start and end of the rental contract, the monthly settlement of water and electricity payment, and the records of communication with the other party about separation are marked month by month. When re-litigation is submitted together with the judgment, the judge can intuitively see that "one-year separation" one-year separation. If the two parties have occasional contact with each other during the separation period, they should take the initiative to explain the nature and frequency of the contact in the materials (for example, only to pick up and drop off children), so as to avoid being used by the other party to "meet frequently". If the other party claims that "he has traveled together/lived together during separation", he refutes it with the time and place of consumption records, indicating that occasional peers do not mean resumption of cohabitation. In short, the "continuity" of separation evidence is more important than the "quantity"-the intermittent chain of evidence will make the identification of "full year" fall short.