Abolishing the "devoir Conjugal" in France, What the 2026 Reform Means for Divorce, Custody and International Cases

The concept of the devoir conjugal in France, the legal obligation of spouses to maintain sexual relations within marriage, has been a cornerstone of French matrimonial law for more than two centuries. On 28 January 2026, the Assemblée nationale voted to abolish this conjugal duty expressly from the Code civil, acting on Proposition de loi (PPL) n°2175, which had been published on 20 January 2026. The reform carries profound consequences for divorce proceedings, evidentiary practice, alimony negotiations, custody disputes and cross-border family cases involving French law. This guide provides a structured, practitioner-oriented analysis of every dimension affected by the change, together with actionable checklists for lawyers and separating spouses navigating the new legal landscape.

Whether you are a family lawyer advising clients in Paris, a dual-national couple considering separation, or an international practitioner assessing how French judgments will be recognised abroad, the sections that follow offer the practical detail you need. We cover the legislative timeline, fault-divorce doctrine after abolition, evidence and procedural strategy, alimony and prestation compensatoire recalculations, child-custody implications, and cross-border jurisdiction questions under the Brussels IIb and Hague frameworks.

What Changed: The Legal Summary and Legislative Timeline of the Devoir Conjugal France Reform

The legislative path that led to the conjugal duty being abolished began with the formal publication of PPL n°2175 by the Assemblée nationale on 20 January 2026. The text proposed to remove the interpretation of Articles 212 and 215 of the Code civil that had long been understood, through case law rather than explicit statutory language, to impose a duty of sexual relations between spouses. On 28 January 2026, the Assemblée nationale voted in favour of the proposal, attracting significant media coverage and public debate. The Sénat subsequently began its examination, with related parliamentary notes and explanatory materials referenced on its website as of 9 April 2026.

Key Phrases and Amendments to the Code Civil

The reform targets the longstanding judicial interpretation of Article 212 of the Code civil, which states that spouses owe each other “respect, fidélité, secours, assistance” (respect, fidelity, relief and assistance). French courts had historically read into this provision, and into Article 215’s requirement for a “communauté de vie” (community of life), an implied obligation of sexual relations. PPL n°2175 seeks to make explicit that marriage does not constitute consent to sexual relations, effectively severing the link between matrimonial duties and any implied sexual obligation. Practitioners should monitor Legifrance for the final promulgated text and exact entry-into-force date, as the Sénat examination was ongoing at the time of writing.

Where to Read the Legislative Text

The full text of PPL n°2175 is available from the Assemblée nationale’s official publication. The existing Code civil provisions on spousal duties and rights can be consulted on Legifrance under the chapter on “Des devoirs et des droits respectifs des époux.” The Vie-publique portal provides an accessible governmental explanation of the proposal’s objectives and expected effects.

Fault Divorce After the End of Conjugal Rights, Doctrine and Practice

The abolition of the devoir conjugal in France transforms the landscape of divorce pour faute (divorce for fault). For decades, French family courts accepted that a sustained refusal of sexual relations could, in itself, constitute a serious or repeated breach of marital duties sufficient to justify fault-based divorce under Article 242 of the Code civil. Industry observers expect this approach to shift substantially once the reform takes full effect.

Previously, a spouse seeking divorce for fault could argue that the other party’s refusal to engage in sexual relations was a violation of the implied conjugal duty. Judges weighed this alongside other factors, the duration of refusal, accompanying behaviour and the overall context of the marriage. The explicit abolition of the underlying obligation means that refusal of sexual relations, standing alone, will no longer be characterisable as a fault under Article 242. The likely practical effect will be that courts require petitioners to demonstrate additional or alternative breaches of marital duty.

This does not mean that conduct related to intimacy becomes entirely irrelevant. Where refusal forms part of a broader pattern, sustained abandonment of community life, psychological cruelty, or deliberate estrangement, it may still be cited as supporting evidence. However, it will need to be contextualised within a wider narrative of fault, rather than presented as a standalone ground.

Grounds That Remain for Divorce for Fault France

The reform does not eliminate the divorce for fault procedure itself. The following grounds remain available under Article 242 of the Code civil:

• Adultery. Extramarital sexual conduct remains a recognised fault ground, although its practical weight has diminished in French jurisprudence over recent decades. An adultery divorce in France still requires evidence of the extramarital relationship.
• Domestic violence. Physical, psychological or sexual violence within marriage continues to constitute a serious breach. The reform reinforces that marriage is not consent, sexual violence by a spouse remains both a civil fault and a criminal offence.
• Abandonment of the conjugal home. A sustained departure from the shared residence, without justification, continues to qualify as a breach of the duty to maintain community of life.
• Psychological cruelty and humiliation. Persistent demeaning conduct, social isolation or controlling behaviour may be pleaded as repeated violations of the duty of respect under Article 212.
• Financial misconduct. Deliberate dissipation of marital assets, hidden debts or refusal to contribute to household expenses can constitute a breach of the devoir de secours.

Practical Drafting for Claims and Defences

Practitioners acting for petitioners should reframe pleadings that previously relied on conjugal-duty arguments. Rather than asserting that a spouse “refused to fulfil the devoir conjugal,” the focus should shift to demonstrating a comprehensive breakdown of community life, with specific factual allegations of isolation, abandonment or cruelty. Defence counsel should note that the reform provides a robust argument against claims framed solely around sexual refusal, any such pleading can now be challenged as legally unfounded.

Evidence and Procedural Practice, What Lawyers Must Do Differently

The abolition of the devoir conjugal in France requires family lawyers to rethink their evidentiary strategies. Where previously a straightforward declaration about the absence of sexual relations might suffice to support a fault claim, the evidential burden now demands a more nuanced approach. The question is no longer whether sexual relations ceased, but whether the broader marital conduct of the respondent constitutes a serious or repeated breach of defined duties.

French family courts operate under the principle of liberté de la preuve (freedom of evidence), meaning that most forms of proof are admissible provided they were obtained lawfully. However, evidence obtained through invasion of privacy, such as secretly recorded conversations or improperly accessed electronic devices, may be excluded under Article 9 of the Code civil and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Practitioners must therefore guide clients to preserve evidence within lawful boundaries: saving openly accessible messages, retaining correspondence and requesting court-ordered expert assessments where appropriate.

When to Seek Emergency Measures and Protection Orders

Where sexual-consent disputes involve allegations of coercion or violence, the reform underscores the principle that marriage is not consent in France. Lawyers should consider applying for an ordonnance de protection under Article 515-9 of the Code civil, which the juge aux affaires familiales can grant within six days. Emergency measures may include exclusion of the violent spouse from the home, temporary custody arrangements and prohibitions on contact. The standard of proof for an ordonnance de protection requires showing probable cause (vraisemblance) of violence and danger, a lower threshold than for full fault proceedings. For cross-border situations where one spouse may relocate, it is critical to file these applications promptly to preserve jurisdictional advantages.

Practitioners handling international divorce cases where one party is abroad will recognise the urgency of early protective action.

Alimony and Prestation Compensatoire After the 2026 Reform

A central question following the abolition concerns how the reform affects alimony after the 2026 reform, specifically the prestation compensatoire and pension alimentaire. Under French law, the prestation compensatoire (Article 270 of the Code civil) is designed to compensate for the disparity in living conditions caused by divorce. Critically, Article 270 provides that a judge may refuse or reduce the prestation compensatoire if the divorce is granted on grounds of the exclusive fault of the spouse requesting it.

The practical implication of the devoir conjugal abolition is that fault arguments previously anchored in conjugal-duty breaches can no longer serve as a basis for reducing or denying the prestation compensatoire. Early indications suggest that this will shift the bargaining dynamic in settlement negotiations: the party who previously relied on a conjugal-duty argument to reduce their exposure will need to identify alternative fault grounds. Conversely, a spouse who might have been disadvantaged by a conjugal-duty finding now has a stronger negotiating position.

The calculation criteria themselves, duration of the marriage, age and health of each spouse, professional qualifications, contributions to the household and career sacrifices, remain unchanged. The reform does not alter the mathematical framework. Rather, it affects the fault overlay that could previously inflate or deflate an award. For the pension alimentaire during proceedings (devoir de secours), the same logic applies: the court’s assessment of interim needs is unaffected, but any punitive adjustment linked to conjugal-duty claims loses its footing.

Negotiation Tips and Sample Settlement Clauses

Practitioners should update their standard settlement templates. Where clauses previously referenced “breach of conjugal duty” as a factor in quantification, this language should be removed and replaced with references to the specific facts of the case, abandonment, violence, financial misconduct or other recognised fault grounds. A sample clause might read: “The parties acknowledge that the prestation compensatoire has been calculated with reference to the disparity in their respective living conditions, taking into account the duration of the marriage, respective contributions and the professional sacrifices documented in the proceedings, without reference to any formerly implied conjugal obligation.” For a comparative perspective on how other jurisdictions approach alimony and child support calculations, practitioners may find cross-jurisdictional analysis instructive.

Child Custody and Parental Authority, Immediate and Medium-Term Effects

The 2026 reforms extend beyond the narrow question of conjugal duty. Related parental-authority adjustments published in early 2026 complement the abolition by reinforcing the principle that decisions about children must be governed exclusively by the child’s best interest (intérêt supérieur de l’enfant), independent of any characterisation of the parents’ intimate relationship.

In practice, French family courts have long applied the best-interest standard when allocating autorité parentale (parental authority) and determining résidence habituelle (habitual residence) of children. However, the abolition of the devoir conjugal removes an indirect influence: previously, a finding that one spouse had breached the conjugal duty could colour the court’s broader assessment of that parent’s conduct and reliability. With this ground eliminated, judges will focus more squarely on direct parenting capacity, the child’s emotional and physical needs, existing relationships and the stability of each proposed arrangement.

Where sexual-consent disputes are intertwined with the separation, particularly where allegations of coercion or violence exist, the reform sharpens the boundary between adult conduct and parenting assessment. Courts will be more attentive to distinguishing between inter-spousal grievances and genuine risks to children. Allegations of domestic violence will still weigh heavily in custody decisions, but they must be substantiated through the evidentiary channels outlined above, not simply inferred from a claim about conjugal-duty breaches.

Industry observers expect that, in the medium term, this will produce more carefully reasoned custody decisions. Judges will need to articulate precisely why a parent’s conduct is relevant to child welfare, rather than relying on the broad umbrella of “marital fault” that previously captured conjugal-duty arguments. For an overview of how other jurisdictions weigh similar factors in child custody and alimony determinations, comparative analysis can help practitioners benchmark expectations.

Mobility, Relocation and International Custody, Immediate Checklist

When custody disputes have a cross-border element, the reform introduces an additional layer of complexity. Practitioners should act quickly on the following steps:

1. Establish habitual residence. Confirm where the child has been habitually resident in the six months preceding the application, this determines jurisdiction under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (1980) and Brussels IIb Regulation.
2. Apply for protective measures. If there is any risk of unilateral relocation, seek an ordonnance de non-déplacement (order preventing removal) or border alerts through the Procureur de la République.
3. Coordinate with foreign counsel. Where the other parent has connections to another jurisdiction, engage local counsel to assess mirror-order possibilities and enforce French orders.
4. Document the child’s ties. Compile evidence of schooling, medical providers, social connections and language abilities, these facts establish habitual residence and inform best-interest assessments.

International Divorce France, Cross-Border Cases, Jurisdiction, Recognition and Choice of Law

For international practitioners, the abolition of the devoir conjugal in France raises important questions about jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition of French divorce judgments abroad. The reform also affects how foreign divorces, particularly those governed by religious or customary law systems that retain conjugal-duty concepts, interact with French ordre public (public order).

Under the Brussels IIb Regulation (which replaced Brussels IIa from 1 August 2022), jurisdiction in divorce matters is determined primarily by the habitual residence of the spouses or by their common nationality. When a French court has jurisdiction, it will apply French substantive law as amended, meaning the reformed provisions apply regardless of the nationality of the spouses. This is a critical point for non-French spouses residing in France: even if their home jurisdiction retains a conjugal-duty concept, French courts will not recognise or enforce it.

For choice of law in maintenance and alimony matters, the 2007 Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations directs courts to apply the law of the habitual residence of the creditor (usually the dependent spouse). Where this points to French law, the reformed framework governs the assessment. Where it points to a foreign law that still includes conjugal-duty concepts, the French court may invoke the ordre public exception to refuse application of provisions deemed incompatible with fundamental French public-policy principles, a scenario that becomes more plausible now that France has expressly repudiated the doctrine.

Cross-Border Vignettes

Consider a dual Franco-Moroccan couple residing in Lyon. If divorce proceedings are filed in France, the French court applies French substantive law, including the reformed provisions. A Moroccan Moudawwana provision recognising conjugal-duty obligations would not be applied or recognised, and any foreign judgment premised on such grounds would risk refusal of exequatur on ordre public grounds.

Alternatively, consider a British-French couple where one spouse relocates to London. If the English court has jurisdiction under its own rules, it will apply English law, which does not recognise a conjugal duty. However, if the French judgment needs to be recognised in England, the absence of the conjugal-duty ground simplifies enforcement, since the English court is unlikely to find any public-policy objection to a French judgment that aligns with English principles.

Steps for Counsel in Other Jurisdictions

Practitioners outside France who are asked to recognise or enforce a French divorce judgment post-reform should verify the grounds on which the French judgment was issued. If the judgment was based on fault grounds that no longer include conjugal-duty breaches, this strengthens the argument for recognition, since the reformed French standards are broadly compatible with ECHR principles of bodily autonomy and consent. For practitioners handling recognition of French decisions for clients with French nationality or descent ties, these cross-border implications are particularly relevant.

Practical Checklist for Lawyers and Separating Spouses

The following checklist organises the key steps by timeline, from the earliest days of a separation through to medium-term case management. Practitioners and individuals should adapt these steps to the specific facts of their situation.

Days 0–30: Immediate Actions

• Preserve evidence. Save all written communications (text messages, emails, letters) that document the conduct of the other spouse. Ensure copies are stored securely and lawfully obtained.
• Seek protective orders if needed. Where violence, coercion or risk of child abduction exists, apply for an ordonnance de protection immediately.
• Consult a family lawyer. Engage specialist counsel to assess the merits of fault-based versus no-fault divorce, and to advise on interim measures. Find a qualified family lawyer through the GLE directory.
• Document the children’s situation. Record the current living arrangements, schooling and medical providers of any children to establish habitual residence.
• Assess cross-border elements. If either spouse holds foreign nationality, has assets abroad, or there is a risk of relocation, initiate an international-law assessment immediately.

Days 30–90: Building the Case

• Commission expert reports. Where psychological impact, domestic violence or financial misconduct is alleged, request medical or financial expert assessments.
• File interim maintenance applications. Apply for pension alimentaire and provisional custody arrangements if not already secured by protective order.
• Draft pleadings carefully. Ensure all fault allegations reference recognised grounds, violence, abandonment, adultery, financial misconduct, and do not rely on conjugal-duty arguments that are no longer sustainable.
• Engage foreign counsel if needed. For cross-border cases, instruct counsel in the other relevant jurisdiction to prepare for mirror orders, recognition applications or defensive filings.

Days 90+: Proceeding to Resolution

• Negotiate settlement. Use updated settlement clause templates that reflect the reformed legal framework. Focus on needs-based arguments for prestation compensatoire.
• Prepare for hearing. Compile the evidence table (communications, expert reports, witness attestations, financial records) and submit it to the juge aux affaires familiales in compliant format.
• Monitor legislative developments. Confirm the exact entry-into-force date of the reform on Legifrance and adjust submissions accordingly. Track any early jurisprudence interpreting the new provisions.

Conclusion: Navigating the Devoir Conjugal France Reform

The abolition of the devoir conjugal in France represents one of the most significant shifts in French family law in decades. It aligns the Code civil with modern principles of bodily autonomy and consent, while creating practical consequences that every family lawyer and separating spouse must understand. Fault-divorce pleadings, evidentiary strategies, alimony negotiations, custody arguments and cross-border recognition analysis all require immediate recalibration. Practitioners should confirm the final entry-into-force date on Legifrance, update their precedent libraries and monitor the first wave of post-reform jurisprudence. For individuals and lawyers navigating these changes, access to specialist counsel with expertise in both French family law and cross-border practice is essential, consult the Global Law Experts lawyer directory to connect with qualified practitioners.

Sources

1. Assemblée nationale, PPL n°2175 (PDF)
2. Sénat, Proposition de loi: summary and process
3. Legifrance, Code civil (Duties and rights of spouses)
4. Vie-publique, Official explanatory summary
5. Dalloz Actualité, Legal analysis
6. Le Monde, News coverage of Assemblée nationale vote
7. Council of Europe / ECHR, Consent and human rights jurisprudence