Opinion ID: 1952770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reconciliation of Parties

Text: The defendant further asserts that plaintiff should not be able to petition for a divorce from bed and board because the parties had no intent of reconciling, thereby allowing plaintiff to avoid the time requirements necessary to file for an absolute divorce and consequently contravene the intent of the General Assembly. We disagree with defendant. The potential for reconciliation is not a prerequisite to obtain a legal separation. See Hamel, 426 A.2d at 261. This Court specifically has noted that in the marital context there may be occasions when a difference thought to be irreconcilable at one time may later be resolved. This is one reason why a spouse should be given the option of deciding whether to seek an absolute divorce or a bed-and-board divorce. Id. Regardless of plaintiff's or defendant's intent at the filing of the petition, this Court believe[s] that the General Assembly has given the marriage partners an option of seeking an absolute divorce or a legal separation based upon the irreconcilable-differences ground. Id. at 262. Therefore, plaintiff has not contravened the legislative intent by petitioning for a divorce from bed and board, despite the parties' current belief that reconciliation is improbable.