Can a Polish Court Refuse to Grant a Divorce? The “Serious Harm” Rule Explained

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Most people filing for divorce in Poland assume that if the marriage has genuinely broken down, the court will dissolve it. And in the vast majority of cases, that is exactly what happens. But Polish law does provide for situations in which a court may refuse to grant a divorce – even where the breakdown of the marriage is complete and irreversible. One of those situations involves what Polish law calls rażąca krzywda – serious or flagrant harm to the spouse who opposes the divorce.

This is not a common outcome. But understanding when it can arise, and what arguments courts actually find persuasive, matters

– whether you are the spouse seeking the divorce or the one opposing it.

Table of Contents

1. What are the “negative conditions” for divorce in Polish law?
2. What does “serious harm” actually mean?
3. Financial hardship – when does it count?
4. Health problems and disability
5. Housing situation
6. Emotional suffering as an argument
7. FAQ

What Are the “Negative Conditions” for Divorce in Polish Law?

The basic requirement for a divorce in Poland is that the marriage has undergone a complete and permanent breakdown – meaning that all three bonds of married life (emotional, physical and economic) have irreversibly ceased (Article 56 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy).

But even when this is established, the court may still decline to grant the divorce if one of the so-called negative conditions under Article 56 § 2 applies.

The first negative condition concerns the situation where only the spouse who caused the breakdown of the marriage is seeking the divorce, and the other spouse objects – provided that objection is not itself contrary to the principles of social coexistence. The second – and this is the subject of this article – applies where granting the divorce would be contrary to the principles of social coexistence (zasady współżycia społecznego), most commonly because it would cause serious harm to the spouse who is opposing it.

What Does “Serious Harm” Actually Mean?

This is a deliberately open-ended concept – it gives courts the flexibility to assess the specific circumstances of each case. But it does not mean that any difficult situation faced by the opposing spouse will be enough.

The Court of Appeal in Poznań, in its judgment of case reference I ACa 230/19, cited the long-standing resolution of the full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of 18 March 1968 (III CZP 70/66), which formulated the principle this way:

“A divorce judgment is contrary to the principles of social coexistence when those principles cannot be reconciled with the serious harm that would be suffered by the spouse opposing the divorce, or when there are weighty socio-educational reasons against granting it.”

The key word is “serious” (rażąca) – meaning harm that is particularly severe, clearly exceeding the ordinary, if painful, consequences that flow from any marriage breakdown. The fact that a spouse’s situation will worsen as a result of divorce is almost universal – but that alone is not enough.

Financial Hardship – When Does It Count?

This is the most frequently invoked argument by the spouse opposing the divorce. And courts assess it with a considerable degree of realism.

In the I ACa 230/19 case, the Court of Appeal in Poznań addressed the argument about the defendant’s deteriorating financial situation in concrete terms:

“There is nothing to prevent the defendant from taking up employment, particularly given her higher pedagogical education. (…) Moreover, she holds certain savings.”

Three factors emerge from this judgment – and from broader judicial practice – when courts assess the financial dimension:

Capacity to work. If the opposing spouse has qualifications and has not demonstrated objective obstacles to employment, the argument that they cannot support themselves after the divorce carries little weight. Assertions are not enough – evidence is required.

Existing assets and savings. If the spouse has personal assets or savings that allow for the satisfaction of basic needs, the financial hardship argument is significantly weakened.

Availability of spousal maintenance. Polish law provides for maintenance (alimenty) between divorced spouses under Article 60 of the Family and Guardianship Code – both in cases of genuine need and where the dissolution of the marriage causes a significant deterioration in the financial position of the non-guilty spouse. The very fact that maintenance can be sought after the divorce reduces the weight of the serious harm argument in financial terms.

Health Problems and Disability

Health issues can be a relevant factor – but they need to be genuinely serious and well documented.

In the case cited above, the opposing spouse held a certificate of mild disability. The Court of Appeal was direct in its assessment: a mild degree of disability that does not preclude the possibility of taking on light work is not sufficient to establish serious harm.

The analysis might look different in cases involving serious chronic illness, a significant degree of disability preventing independent functioning, or a need for constant care. But even then, courts consider the full picture – including access to support from other sources such as family, social welfare benefits and healthcare.

Housing Situation

The Court of Appeal in the cited judgment noted that the defendant and the parties’ children had their housing needs secured – and treated this as a circumstance that weakened the serious harm argument.

This is a meaningful signal. For courts, having a roof over one’s head is one of the primary benchmarks when assessing whether a divorce would genuinely deprive the opposing spouse of the means to meet their basic needs. Where the housing question is resolved – whether through ownership, the possibility of living with family, or other means – the serious harm argument becomes harder to sustain.

Emotional Suffering as an Argument

This question comes up often. The spouse opposing the divorce sometimes argues that the dissolution of the marriage would cause them serious emotional harm – depression, breakdown, an inability to return to normal life.

Courts do not dismiss this dimension, but they assess it through the lens of the actual relationship between the parties. In I ACa 230/19, the Court of Appeal drew attention to the deep mutual hostility and strongly negative emotions between the spouses – and drew a conclusion that is intuitively understandable:

“The intensity of the negative emotions between the parties (…) provides no basis for concluding that granting the divorce – despite the defendant’s objection – would cause her serious harm.”

In other words: if a marriage has for years been characterised by conflict, aggression and mutual hostility, it is difficult to argue convincingly that formally dissolving it will be the source of particular emotional harm. Courts assess the real situation, not declarations.

FAQ

Can opposing a divorce actually stop the proceedings? It can – but in practice this is rare. Objecting alone is not enough. The opposing spouse must demonstrate that one of the negative conditions under Article 56 § 2 applies – that is, either that granting the divorce would be contrary to the principles of social coexistence, or that the petition was filed by the spouse exclusively at fault for the breakdown.

Can a serious mental illness block a divorce? It may constitute a relevant argument, particularly where the illness renders the spouse completely dependent and without any other support. Each case is assessed individually – the court considers available care, family support and the possibilities for securing the ill person’s needs after the divorce.

Does a long marriage and sacrifice for the family carry any weight? It does – but not as an independent basis for refusing the divorce. It is relevant when assessing fault and potential maintenance entitlements. A spouse who spent many years out of the workforce for the sake of the family and would face a very difficult financial situation after the divorce has a stronger position when seeking maintenance under Article 60 § 2 of the Family and Guardianship Code than when attempting to block the divorce itself.

What if the opposing spouse has no income or assets at all? This is a circumstance the court will take into account – but it will assess it alongside other factors: age, health, capacity to work, professional qualifications. The absence of income at the time of the hearing does not automatically establish serious harm.

Does it matter which spouse filed for divorce? Yes – and this is an important nuance that is sometimes overlooked. If the spouse filing for divorce is also the one found to be exclusively at fault for the marriage breakdown, and the other spouse objects, the court may refuse the divorce on separate grounds (the first negative condition under Article 56 § 2). The two grounds are distinct, though they can overlap in practice.

How does this work if I am a foreign national going through divorce in Poland? The same rules apply regardless of nationality, provided the Polish courts have jurisdiction over your case (which is generally the case if you are habitually resident in Poland). The concept of “serious harm” as a ground for refusing divorce does not have a direct equivalent in many other legal systems, so it can come as a surprise. If your spouse has indicated they will oppose the divorce, it is worth taking legal advice early – the strength of that opposition depends heavily on the specific circumstances.

Read more about divorce with and without establishing fault in Poland → [link to relevant page]

Do you need legal help with divorce proceedings in Poland? Call: +48 531 335 713 or email: kancelaria@prawnikodrozwodu.pl

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every family law case is individual and requires analysis of the specific circumstances and documents involved. The law firm accepts no liability for actions taken on the basis of the information contained in this article. For legal advice tailored to your situation, please contact our office.

Kancelaria Prawa Rodzinnego (Family Law Office): Adwokat Michalina Koligot, Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz, Adwokat Anna Konrady, Radca prawny Joanna Jędrzejewska ul. Mickiewicza 18a/3, 60-834 Poznań | tel. +48 531 335 713 | kancelaria@prawnikodrozwodu.pl | www.prawnikodrozwodu.pl