Most people assume that once one spouse says, “I want a divorce,” the judge has no choice but to grant it. As a practical matter, most divorce cases do ultimately end in a dissolution of the marriage. But as a legal proposition, it is not always that simple.

Many states have fairly similar procedures for dealing with a contested claim that a marriage is irretrievably broken. The terminology and precise requirements vary by state, but when one spouse denies that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court may be required to hold a hearing, receive evidence, and make findings on that issue rather than simply accepting the other spouse’s assertion that the marriage is over. Depending on the state, the court may also consider the prospect of reconciliation, continue the case for a period of time, refer the parties to counseling or conciliation, or examine whether a required period of separation has actually occurred.

The state laws discussed below are only a few examples. Divorce law is state-specific, and it would be impossible to cover every state’s procedure in one article. The larger point is that Missouri is not unique in requiring a judicial determination concerning the breakdown of a marriage when that issue is properly contested.

A judge can sometimes delay or even deny a divorce when the statutory grounds have not been established. Continued sexual relations can be relevant to that determination in some states. So can continued cohabitation, attempted reconciliations, and evidence that the spouses are still functioning as a married couple.

This does not happen frequently. Most people who persist in seeking a divorce will eventually receive one. But “uncommon” and “legally impossible” are two very different things.

Missouri Requires a Finding That the Marriage Is Irretrievably Broken

Missouri provides a good example. Under Missouri Revised Statute § 452.305, a court is directed to enter a judgment of dissolution when several requirements are met, including a finding that “there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved and that therefore the marriage is irretrievably broken.” The statute now also expressly provides, effective August 28, 2026, that pregnancy status shall not prevent a court from entering a judgment of dissolution or legal separation.

The new pregnancy provision does not, however, eliminate Missouri’s separate requirement that a marriage be irretrievably broken.

That becomes particularly important when one spouse contests the divorce. Under Missouri Revised Statute § 452.320, if one spouse denies under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court must consider all relevant factors. Those factors expressly include the circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the petition and the prospect of reconciliation.

Missouri law does not simply say that one spouse’s desire for a divorce automatically ends the inquiry in every case. If the issue is properly contested, the judge has a statutory determination to make.

This Type of Procedure Is Not Unique to Missouri

Missouri’s procedure may sound unusual to people who assume “no-fault divorce” means that a judge must immediately grant a divorce whenever either spouse requests one. But similar concepts appear in the divorce laws of numerous other states.

The details are not identical. Some states use the term “irretrievably broken.” Others focus on “irreconcilable differences,” the absence of a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, or a required period of living separate and apart. The procedural mechanisms also differ. In some jurisdictions, a contested allegation requires a hearing or judicial findings. In others, the judge may continue the proceeding for a specified period, order or recommend conciliation or counseling, or determine whether the parties have actually satisfied a statutory separation requirement.

The examples below are just that—examples. They illustrate why it is dangerous to make a blanket statement that a judge has no authority to question whether the legal requirements for a divorce have been satisfied.

Sexual Relations Can Matter

One fact that can surprise divorcing spouses is that continued sexual relations may have legal significance. That does not mean having sex with your spouse automatically cancels a pending divorce. It does not. The significance varies from state to state and depends on the particular statutory requirements involved.

But consider the issue a judge may be deciding. Are these spouses really living separate and apart? Did they reconcile? Is there still a reasonable prospect of reconciliation? Is the marriage actually irretrievably broken? When those questions are legally relevant, the spouses’ conduct toward one another may be relevant as well.

Sexual relations can become evidence of the nature of the marital relationship, particularly when combined with other evidence such as sharing a bedroom, continuing to live together, taking vacations together, presenting themselves publicly as a married couple, or repeatedly separating and reconciling.

Kentucky provides one of the clearest examples because its legislature actually addressed sexual cohabitation in the divorce statute.

Kentucky Expressly Addresses Sexual Cohabitation

Under Kentucky Revised Statute § 403.170, no dissolution decree may be entered until the spouses have lived apart for at least 60 days. Kentucky expressly states that “living apart” includes living under the same roof without sexual cohabitation.

That is significant. Kentucky recognizes that spouses can be separated while still occupying the same house, but its statute expressly connects the separation requirement to the absence of sexual cohabitation.

Kentucky also requires a finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken. If one spouse denies that under oath, the judge must consider relevant factors, including the circumstances that led to the divorce filing and the prospect of reconciliation. The court can make a finding immediately or continue the matter for another hearing 30 to 60 days later. The judge may suggest counseling and may order a conciliation conference. Kentucky defines an irretrievable breakdown as a situation in which there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

Separately, Kentucky Revised Statute § 403.140 requires the court to find that the marriage is irretrievably broken and that the statutory conciliation requirements have been satisfied before entering the dissolution.

Kentucky provides a concrete statutory example of why it is too simplistic to say that sexual relations between divorcing spouses can never matter.

Pennsylvania Can Require Counseling—and a Court Can Deny the Divorce

Pennsylvania provides an even stronger example of the larger point. Its divorce statutes expressly contemplate a situation in which a judge ultimately denies a requested divorce.

Under Pennsylvania’s divorce statutes, including §§ 3301 and 3302, a contested irretrievable-breakdown case can result in a hearing. If the court determines that there is a reasonable prospect of reconciliation, it must continue the matter for between 90 and 120 days, unless the parties agree to a longer period. During the continuation period, the statute provides for counseling under specified circumstances.

What happens afterward is particularly noteworthy. If the parties have not reconciled and one spouse continues to maintain under oath that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the judge must determine whether it actually is. If the judge finds that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court grants the divorce. If the judge does not make that finding, Pennsylvania law expressly directs the court to deny the divorce.

Pennsylvania is another clear illustration of why the general statement that “one spouse wants a divorce, so the judge has to grant it” is too broad. Its legislature expressly created a procedure for determining whether the marriage is actually irretrievably broken when that issue is contested.

Living Together Can Matter Too

Sexual relations are not the only potentially relevant evidence. Continued cohabitation can also raise questions, depending upon the state’s statute and the facts of the particular case.

Two estranged spouses can certainly occupy the same residence without functioning as a married couple. Financial necessity, children, housing costs or simple convenience may cause divorcing spouses to remain under the same roof. Kentucky’s statute expressly recognizes that possibility by allowing spouses to “live apart” while residing under the same roof, provided there is no sexual cohabitation.

But the details can matter when the existence of separation or reconciliation is legally disputed. Are the spouses sleeping in separate bedrooms? Are they maintaining separate lives? Are they regularly eating meals together? Are they vacationing together? Have they resumed sexual relations? Have they told family or friends that they reconciled? Are they sharing a bedroom and otherwise continuing substantially the same marital relationship they had before the divorce was filed?

There is a meaningful factual difference between two estranged spouses who happen to occupy the same house and two spouses who continue functioning substantially as a married couple. Depending on the state’s law, those facts may become relevant to whether the statutory requirements for divorce have actually been satisfied.

No-Fault Divorce Does Not Always Mean Divorce on Demand

Part of the confusion comes from the phrase “no-fault divorce.” People sometimes use “no-fault divorce” and “divorce on demand” as though they mean exactly the same thing. They do not necessarily mean the same thing.

No-fault divorce generally means a spouse does not have to prove traditional marital misconduct, such as adultery or cruelty, as the sole route to obtaining a divorce. But a state can have a no-fault divorce system while still requiring a finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken, that reconciliation is not reasonably probable, that the spouses have lived apart for a specified period, or that another statutory condition has been satisfied.

Missouri is a good illustration. The verified petition itself must allege that the marriage is irretrievably broken and that there remains no reasonable likelihood that it can be preserved under Missouri Revised Statute § 452.310. When that proposition is denied under oath, § 452.320 establishes a procedure for the judge to determine whether it has actually been proven.

Pregnancy Is Not the Only Possible Issue That Can Prevent the Immediate Entry of a Divorce

This distinction is particularly relevant after Missouri’s 2026 change to its divorce statute. As of August 28, 2026, Missouri Revised Statute § 452.305 expressly provides that pregnancy status shall not prevent a Missouri court from entering a judgment of dissolution or legal separation.

That resolves the pregnancy issue. But it should not be confused with a broader proposition that pregnancy was somehow the only possible legal reason a Missouri court could decline to enter a divorce.

The remainder of Missouri’s statutory framework still exists. A Missouri court still must find that there is no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved and that the marriage is irretrievably broken. If one spouse denies irretrievable breakdown under oath, the court still must follow § 452.320 and consider the evidence, including the prospect of reconciliation.

Missouri is also not an outlier in having a procedure for dealing with a contested claim that a marriage is irretrievably broken. Other states use similar concepts, although their terminology, waiting periods and procedures differ. Kentucky and Pennsylvania are just two examples. Kentucky expressly addresses sexual cohabitation in its separation requirement, while Pennsylvania expressly contemplates denial of the divorce when the court cannot make the required finding of irretrievable breakdown.

These are not everyday occurrences in divorce court. They are exceptions to what normally happens. But their rarity does not mean the statutes do not exist.

Can One Spouse Permanently Prevent the Other From Getting Divorced?

As a practical matter, usually not. If a spouse remains determined to end the marriage, continued separation generally makes reconciliation increasingly unlikely. Required separation periods eventually expire, and the evidence that the marriage cannot be preserved becomes stronger.

That is one reason an outright denial of a divorce is unusual in modern practice. In many cases, even if a judge is unwilling to grant the dissolution at one particular point in time, the circumstances eventually satisfy the statutory requirements.

But there is a substantial difference between saying that most contested divorce cases ultimately result in a divorce and saying that a judge has no legal ability to refuse or delay a divorce whenever one spouse asks for one. The first proposition describes what ordinarily happens. The second is too broad.

The Bottom Line

Divorce law is state-specific, and the precise requirements vary considerably. Many states have procedures addressing what happens when the factual or statutory basis for a no-fault divorce is contested. Missouri, Kentucky and Pennsylvania are only a few examples of the different ways legislatures have addressed irretrievable breakdown, reconciliation and separation.

Sometimes the question is whether the marriage is irretrievably broken. Sometimes it is whether there remains a reasonable prospect of reconciliation. Sometimes it involves a required period of separation. In some circumstances, counseling or conciliation can become part of the process.

Continued sexual relations can matter too. Kentucky makes that particularly clear by expressly incorporating the absence of sexual cohabitation into its definition of living apart for the required 60-day period. Continued cohabitation and other evidence that spouses have reconciled or continue functioning as a married couple can likewise become relevant depending on the state’s law.

None of this means that judges routinely force unwilling spouses to remain married. They do not. Nor does it mean that having sexual relations once with an estranged spouse automatically defeats a divorce.

It means something narrower but legally important: the statement that “if one person wants a divorce, the judge has to grant it” does not accurately describe the law in every state or every case. And while Missouri’s new statute makes clear that pregnancy itself cannot prevent a dissolution, pregnancy is not the only issue that can affect whether the legal requirements for entering a divorce have been met.

If you are going through a divorce where one party is contesting it, Stange Law Firm can help. Contact us online or at 855-5-FORYOU.