What defense can be used against a fault-based divorce claim based on mutual wrongdoing?

Recrimination serves as a valid defense against a fault-based divorce claim, particularly when both spouses have committed wrongful acts that contribute to the breakdown of the marriage. In the context of mutual wrongdoing, when one spouse raises a fault claim (such as adultery or cruelty) against the other, the accused spouse can argue that the other spouse is equally at fault for similar or different actions. This defense acknowledges that both parties are culpable and thereby complicates the adjudication of fault, potentially leading to dismissal or reduction of the fault claim.

This principle is rooted in the idea that a party should not be able to benefit from their own wrongdoing. If the court finds that both spouses have engaged in conduct that violates the marriage vows or contributes to the breakdown of the marriage, it may find it inequitable to grant a divorce based solely on the accusations of the initiating party. Alternatively, this mutual wrongdoing can shift the court’s perspective regarding the equities of divorce, potentially leading to an outcome that might not penalize one party more harshly than the other due to reciprocal actions.

Other potential defenses like condonation, justification, or consensual agreement do not focus specifically on the mutuality of fault in the same way. Condonation implies forgiveness of the wrongdoing by one