Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 46-32). Grounds for dissolution of marriage; legal separation; annulment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A marriage is dissolved only by (1) the death of one of the parties or (2) a decree of annulment or dissolution of the marriage by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) An annulment shall be granted if the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state or of the state in which the marriage was performed.

(c) A decree of dissolution of a marriage or a decree of legal separation shall be granted upon a finding that one of the following causes has occurred: (1) The marriage has broken down irretrievably; (2) the parties have lived apart by reason of incompatibility for a continuous period of at least the eighteen months immediately prior to the service of the complaint and that there is no reasonable prospect that they will be reconciled; (3) adultery; (4) fraudulent contract; (5) wilful desertion for one year with total neglect of duty; (6) seven years' absence, during all of which period the absent party has not been heard from; (7) habitual intemperance; (8) intolerable cruelty; (9) sentence to imprisonment for life or the commission of any infamous crime involving a violation of conjugal duty and punishable by imprisonment for a period in excess of one year; (10) legal confinement in a hospital or hospitals or other similar institution or institutions, because of mental illness, for at least an accumulated period totaling five years within the period of six years next preceding the date of the complaint.

(d) In an action for dissolution of a marriage or a legal separation on the ground of habitual intemperance, it shall be sufficient if the cause of action is proved to have existed until the time of the separation of the parties.

(e) In an action for dissolution of a marriage or a legal separation on the ground of wilful desertion for one year, with total neglect of duty, the furnishing of financial support shall not disprove total neglect of duty, in the absence of other evidence.

(f) For purposes of this section, “adultery” means voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than such person's spouse.

(P.A. 73-373, S. 1; P.A. 74-169, S. 1, 18; P.A. 78-230, S. 18, 54; P.A. 91-19, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 74-169 rephrased Subsec. (c) and applied provisions to decrees of legal separation; P.A. 78-230 restated provisions, adding Subdiv. indicators in Subsec. (c) and creating Subsecs. (d) and (e) from provisions formerly in Subsec. (c); Sec. 46-32 transferred to Sec. 46b-40 in 1979; P.A. 91-19 added Subsec. (f) defining “adultery”.

See Sec. 46b-48 re dissolution of marriage or annulment upon conviction of crime against chastity.

Annotations to former section 46-32:

Cited. 183 C. 433.

Standard for marriage dissolution of “irretrievable breakdown” is not unconstitutional as a denial of due process since language is reasonably precise and not vague, uncertain or indefinite. 35 CS 123.

Annotations to present section:

Constitutional even without judicial guidelines to limit discretionary fact-finding of trial courts as to irretrievable breakdown. 178 C. 254. Cited. 184 C. 307; 190 C. 269; Id., 657; 194 C. 312; 224 C. 749.

Cited. 13 CA 282; 15 CA 96; 25 CA 210; 35 CA 581.

Cited. 44 CS 431.

Subsec. (c):

Cited. 179 C. 568. Irretrievable breakdown not unconstitutionally vague within strictures of due process. 181 C. 225. Cited. 183 C. 512; 184 C. 558; 185 C. 156.

Cited. 4 CA 611; 13 CA 632. Trial court rejected defendant's claim that statute infringed on his religious beliefs because statute permitted plaintiff to obtain a divorce against his wishes; statute is a valid and neutral law of general applicability. 82 CA 41.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 49 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Mitchell v. Mitchell, 481 A.2d 31 (Conn. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mitchell v. Mitchell, 481 A.2d 31 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 11× “On March 27, 1982, Gay commenced an action for dissolution of the marriage pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-40, the general dissolution provision.”

Foisie v. Foisie, 335 Conn. 525 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 12× “The trial court ruled that granting the motion to open would reinstate the parties’ marriage, the rein- stated marriage automatically would be dissolved under General Statutes § 46b-40 due to the defendant’s death, and, thus, the reopened action for dissolution would abate,…”

Grimm v. Grimm, 844 A.2d 855 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 10× “Grimm, claims that (1) General Statutes § 46b-40 (c) (l) 1 violates the free exercise of religion clauses of the federal and state constitutions, 2 (2) the trial court improperly concluded that the parties’ marriage had irretrievably broken down and precluded expert testimony on…”

Venuti v. Venuti, 440 A.2d 878 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 4× “General Statutes §§ 46b-40 to 46b-87; Kennedy v.”

Grimm v. Grimm, 886 A.2d 391 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 2× “4 The defendant raised the following claims in the Appellate Court: “(1) General Statutes § 46b-40 (c) (1) violates the free exercise of religion clauses of the federal and state constitutions, (2) the trial court improperly concluded that the parties’ marriage had irretrievably…”

Grimm v. Fox, 33 A.3d 205 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 4× “[2] In his appeal to the Appellate Court, the plaintiff claimed that: (1) the irretrievable breakdown provision of General Statutes § 46b-40 (c)(1) violates the free exercise of religion clauses of the federal and state constitutions; (2) the trial court improperly concluded…”

Ciarleglio v. Martin, 228 Conn. App. 241 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 11× “’’ The defendant claims that § 52-599 (c) (1) applies in the present case, arguing that the action seeking annulment is rendered useless or absurd because ‘‘the very same second the motion to open [would be] granted, General Statutes § 46b-40 would immediately operate to…”

Sweet v. Sweet, 462 A.2d 1031 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 46b-40 (c) of the General Statutes lists ten grounds for granting a dissolution of marriage, the first of which is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.”

Ireland v. Ireland, 717 A.2d 676 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “See generally General Statutes §§ 46b-40 through 46b-87a.”

Turgeon v. Turgeon, 460 A.2d 1260 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 2× “Adultery as a ground for dissolution under General Statutes § 46b-40 requires proof that the other spouse has engaged in extramarital sexual relations.”

Castagno v. Wholean, 684 A.2d 1181 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 46b-40 et seq. The bill was introduced during the 1978 legislative session of the General Assembly as Substitute Senate Bill No.”

Gluck v. Gluck, 435 A.2d 35 (Conn. 1980). · cites it 3× “Next, the defendant asserts that General Statutes § 46b-40 (c), to the extent that it authorizes the dissolution of a marriage if the marriage has broken down irretrievably, is vague, nullifies the other grounds for dissolution, prevents defenses and impairs the obligation of…”

Show all 49 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40(c) — 1 case

Negus Forrester v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2010).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40(c)(3) — 1 case

Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 497 S.E.2d 531 (W. Va. 1997).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40(c)(8) — 1 case

Toland v. Toland, 182 A.3d 651 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.