裁判分居

 在法律上而言，一旦解除婚姻關係，雙方原本作為配偶的權利（例如社會保障、稅務優惠）隨之消失；同時，婚姻法所賦予的權利，例如婚姻居所權利亦會喪失。在離婚的過程中，雙方亦需承擔心靈上的創傷，故雙方如希望在和平的情況下解決分歧，同時保留一定婚姻權利，除離婚外，裁判分居（Judicial Separation）是其中一項辦法。

裁判分居讓雙方的分居獲得法律認可，結婚最少一年才可離婚的規定並不適用，申請人可在婚姻中任何時間提出申請。根據香港法例第179章《婚姻訴訟條例》第5條，如婚姻任何一方以香港為居籍、呈請當日雙方均居於香港及婚姻任何一方與香港有密切聯繫即可申請。而在第24條，申請人需要提供與離婚呈請（第11A(2)條）相類似的理由以獲得裁判分居判令。申請裁判分居的理由包括答辯人曾與人通姦而無法忍受與其共同生活、無合理期望與答辯人共同生活、雙方已分居最少1年及答辯人同意離婚、雙方分居最少2年及答辯人已遺棄申請人最少1年。法庭毋須考慮婚姻是否已經破裂至無可挽救，如法庭信納上述理由並合符香港法例第192章《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》第18條有關對子女作出的妥善安排，則可批出裁判分居判令。

裁判分居與分居令作用相同，雙方雖為夫妻，但已沒有共同生活的義務，並且雙方皆不能再婚，除非作出離婚呈請。如夫妻擁有子女，則雙方有同等的探視權及撫養權； 即使一方沒盡撫養的義務，另一方仍需如有婚姻關係下繼續照顧子女的生活及福利。裁決分居亦令子女能夠儘早適應將來父母離婚後的新生活。而在贍養費上，《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》第4條保障婚姻一方（女方）有足夠的經濟給養，並且上訴法庭於Lau Tang Su Ping May v Lau Chu CACV 45/1989一案中確定法庭會同意婚姻一方於裁判分居後獲得贍養費，而即使裁判分居的判令被駁回，婚姻一方仍可在申請離婚呈請施繼續獲得經濟濟助。

夫妻選擇申請裁判分居而非離婚可基於以下理由。第一，由於雙方需要結婚一年才可提交離婚呈請，故假若雙方結婚未滿一年已不能共同生活，裁判分居可能是雙方的唯一選擇；第二，雙方或婚姻一方因宗教或道德理由反對離婚但仍想結束共同生活；第三，婚姻其中一方並不希望對方再婚；第四，雙方並不想失去婚姻關係所擁有的權益或利益及第五，裁判分居可為挽救婚姻的最後機會。

申請裁判分居最主要的原因或許是婚姻關係所提供的經濟利益。由於雙方仍維持婚姻關係，在稅務上仍可保留婚姻關係的稅務優惠；而在贍養費而言，雖然法院仍會對有關安排作出判決，但法庭仍會考慮雙方的分居關係而某程度在贍養費的總額上作出調整；在保險的角度上，不少僱員保險只容許已婚人士受保或者已婚人士的保障較多，如離婚將減少所得的利益。當然，其他利益例如公務員所有的家庭福利及退休金，如雙方維持婚姻狀態，此福利將可繼續擁有，儼如正常婚姻。但可留意的是雖然裁判分居並非離婚，但在遺囑執行上則如離婚狀態，婚姻一方不能再繼續獲得遺囑利益除非擬定新的遺囑。

離婚的影響可以很深遠，除裁判分居外，分居令及家事調解均為解決婚姻分歧的辦法。在決定各方案前，婚姻雙方應先衡量子女利益及對他們的影響，再評估離婚後對婚姻雙方的影響。裁判分居較離婚更具成本效益，同時亦為雙方提供和解機會。歡迎致電或WhatsApp 69776708 林先生查詢報價及預約。

Once the parties divorce, rights such as social security and taxation discounts would lose, together with marital rights, like the rights of marriage domicile. During the process of divorce, both parties have to bear psychological trauma, therefore, if both parties wish to resolve peacefully while retaining certain marital rights, besides divorce, judicial separation is one of the alternatives.

Judicial separation is a legal recognition of the both parties’ separation. The requirement that a divorce can only be obtained after marriage for at least one year does not apply. Applicants can apply at any time during the marriage. According to Cap.179 Matrimonial Causes Ordinance Article 5, if either party to the marriage is domiciled in Hong Kong, both parties reside in Hong Kong on the day of the petition, and either party to the marriage has close ties with Hong Kong, parties could apply for judicial separation. In Article 24, the applicant needs to provide similar grounds as in the divorce petition (Article 11A(2)) to obtain a judicial separation order. The reasons for applying for judicial separation include: the respondent has committed adultery and the applicant cannot endure living together, the applicant has no reasonable expectation to live with the respondent, the two parties have been separated for at least 1 year and the respondent agrees to divorce, the two parties have been separated for at least 2 years and the respondent has abandoned the applicant at least 1 year. The court does not need to consider whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably. If the court is satisfied with the above reasons and section 18 of the Marriage Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192) regarding the proper arrangements for the children is adhered to, it can grant a judicial separation decree.

Judicial separation has the same effect as a separation order. Although both parties are still husbands and wives, they no longer have the obligation to live together, and neither party can remarry unless a petition for divorce has been made. If the spouse has children, both parties have the same right of visitation and custody; even if one party fails to fulfill the duty, the other party still needs to continue to take care of the children as if in a marriage. Judicial separation also enables the children adapt to the new life after their parents’ divorce in the future as soon as possible. Regarding to maintenance, Article 4 of the "Marriage Legal Procedure and Property Ordinance" guarantees that one party to the marriage should have sufficient financial support, and in the case of Lau Tang Su Ping May v Lau Chu CACV 45/1989, the Court of Appeal agreed that one party to the marriage would receive alimony after the judicial separation order is granted, and even if the separation order was rejected, the party could continue to obtain financial relief in the course of applying for a divorce petition.

There are several reasons for couples to prefer judicial separation. First, since both parties need to be married for one year before submitting a petition for divorce, if the two parties cannot satisfy the requirement, judicial separation may be the only option for them; second, the parties or one of the parties opposes due to religious or moral reasons; third, one party to the marriage does not want the other to remarry; fourth, the two parties do not want to lose the rights or benefits of the marriage relationship; and fifth, judicial separation is their last chance to save the marriage.

Perhaps the main reason for applying for judicial separation is the financial benefits provided by the marriage relationship. Since the two parties still maintain the relationship, the tax concessions for the marital relationship can still be retained. In terms of maintenance, although the court has discretion on the arrangement, the court will still consider the separation between the two parties and make adjustments; From the perspective of insurance, many employee insurances only allow married persons to be insured, or married persons are more protected, divorce will reduce the benefits. Of course, other benefits, such as family benefits and pensions of civil servants, parties will continue receiving such benefits if they maintain their marriage status. However, it should be noted that although judicial separation is not equal to a divorce, in the execution of the will, the party will lose his/her interest on the will unless a new will is made.

The impact of divorce can be far-reaching. Apart from judicial separation, separation orders and family mediation are both ways to resolve conflicts. Both parties to the marriage should first evaluate the interests of their children and the impact on them, and then evaluate the impact on both parties after the divorce before choosing the next step. Comparing with divorce, judicial separation is more cost-effective and it offers reconciliation for both parties which might save the marriage.