عنوان مقاله [English]
There are three approaches regarding the divorce types on behalf of the wife as husband's advocacy (derived from Article26 of the Family Protection Law 2013): "uncontested divorce theory" where a certificate of compromise impossibility is issued, "contested divorce theory" at the wife's request; where the divorce decree is issued and "the two-step theory of such divorce process". The different effects resulting from the acceptance of each of these approaches on the rights of each couples in the judicial process and implementing stage of divorce, confirm the necessity of investigating the issue.
This descriptive-analytical study was conducted by examining the advisory theories of the Judiciary Law Department and using the votes issued by the family courts and issues discussed in the judicial sessions; to answer this main question: "what is the divorce type on behalf of the wife as husband's advocacy and its effects".
The results revealed that, Article26 of the aforementioned law, in terms of determining the divorce type (on husband's behalf) is ambiguous and therefore suggests a revised text. In addition it considers the best interpretation of the above article in being two-stage of wife divorce on husband's behalf: firstly, verification lawsuit for the power of attorney for the wife, and then a request to issue a certificate of compromise impossibility in the uncontested divorce form. This theory, which is more consistent with the provisions of Article 26, solves the problems faced by the other two theories, especially in terms of closed matters' validity in case of not executing the divorce decree within the deadline stipulated in Article34 of the Family Protection Law.