Hopes that the Government would abandon plans to introduce 'quickie' divorces have proved shortlived after it introduced a new bill in the Queen's Speech on Monday.
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill that had been introduced by former justice secretary David Gauke outlined plans to reduce the length of time it takes for couples to divorce, while also making it easier to do so.
MPs were unable to take a final vote on the bill in time before Parliament was prorogued.
The Government said yesterday that the new bill being introduced would contain similar provisions to the original draft legislation.
The original bill eliminated the need for one partner in the marriage to find a fault with their spouse in order to justify the divorce.
The plans for no-fault divorce will also reduce the length of the process down to six months and remove the right of a spouse to contest the divorce.
Where the decision to divorce is mutual, couples will be able to choose to make a joint application to end their marriage.
The plans have been supported by the Marriage Foundation, but opposed by other campaign groups.
Harry Benson, research director at the Marriage Foundation, said that the provisions in the new bill were "sensible".
When the original bill was introduced, he had spoken in support of the changes, saying that critics had nothing to fear from no-fault divorce and that he did not believe it would undermine the institution of marriage.
"First of all, we have had no-fault divorce for the past fifty years. The issue is one of timing. How long should a couple wait before they can fully unwind the legal agreement into which they entered when they got married?" he said at the time.
"It's precisely because couples don't want to wait two years that they are then forced to pin the blame on one spouse, as they do in 60 per cent of cases.
"Should the timing be shorter as a result? However long you think it should be, the principle of no-fault divorce has been already been established for a very long time.
"Second, it's not clear why we should have fault-based divorce at all. All humans are fallible. Nobody is perfect. This does not in any way excuse bad behaviour. But it does mean that in a relationship involving two fallible people, nobody can be judged faultless if it goes wrong."
In June, Fiona Bruce MP spoke against the original bill in Parliament, saying that no-fault divorce would not encouraging struggling couples to work at reconciliation and could deter people from getting married altogether.
"I am concerned that, if marriage can be seen as so easily exited, more and more young people will think, 'Why bother entering into it at all?'" she said.
"Marriage rates may well, and likely will, further decline."
She added: "I think these proposals will do even less than current procedures to help to promote dialogue and potentially therefore reconciliation."
When the Bill was halted by prorogation, the Christian Institute welcomed the suspension of the bill.
Ciarán Kelly, a Deputy Director at The Christian Institute, said at the time: "We are pleased this marriage-wrecker's charter has failed to pass. It would have made the present epidemic-levels of divorce even worse."
