Broken Down Irretrievably常用于法律语境中，表示“感情破裂并无法挽回、夫妻感情确已破裂”。

Broken Down Irretrievably，是申请No-fault Divorce最常见的一种理由，No-fault Divorce翻译为“无过错离婚”。“Broken Down Irretrievably”表明夫妻关系已经无法挽回，此种状态下的离婚可称之为无过错离婚。

No-fault Divorce是指要求离婚的一方配偶无需证明对方配偶存有过错，而只需简单说明夫妻双方无法继续共同生活便可获取法庭的离婚判决。

1969年，美国加州（California）成为美国（乃至西方世界）第一个适用无过错离婚的州，在此之前，获取离婚的唯一方式是证明对方配偶存有过错或因对方配偶的不当行为而导致婚姻完全破裂。一般情况下，准予无过错离婚的理由通常为：

无法相处（Incompatibility）

无法协调的差异（Irreconcilable Differences）

婚姻完全破裂（Irremediable Breakdown of the Marriage）。

参考双语例句：

It is arguably inconsistent to require couples whose marriages have genuinely broken down irretrievably and who have satisfied the one-year separation requirement to stay married until after two years of marriage.

因此，对于婚姻真正破裂至无法挽回的夫妇，若他们已经符合分居一年的要求，却仍然要维持婚姻关係直至达到已婚两年的规定，则会造成可引致争辩的前后矛盾。

Keeping in view his landmark judgement in a divorce case, the Union of India is seriously considering his suggestion and amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, incorporating irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce.

鉴于他在离婚案件中的里程碑式判决，印度联邦郑重考虑他的建议，对《1955年印度婚姻法》作了修订，将破裂至无法挽救列为离婚的一个理由。

Parallel to these objectives, professional studies continue at these centres regarding preparation for marriage, incompatibility between spouses, single parenthood, problems stemming from parent – child relations, distribution of roles and responsibilities inside the family, care of the elderly and the disabled, elimination of the problems before and after divorce, and helping family be self-sufficient.

与这些目标平行的是，在这些中心的专业研究仍在继续，主要是关于婚姻 准备、配偶水火不容、单亲父母 、亲子关系引发的问题、家庭角色的分配和责任 、照顾老年人和残疾人、消除离婚前后的问题以及帮助家庭自足。

Even before the Family Code Act was adopted, judges dealing with cases of divorce by mutual consent tended, in the name of the best interests of the child, to base their decisions concerning children’s social and economic rights on the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

在有关《家庭法》的法律通过前，法官在协议离婚案例中，习惯于以其最高利益为名，在《儿童权利公约》主要内容的基础上，优先采用与儿童社会经济权利有关的决策规定。

In determining whether the existing pension scheme for permanent judges should be extended to cover ad litem judges who have served continuously for more than three years, the General Assembly may wish to consider whether, given the changed circumstances of the Tribunals’ operations (namely that the number of ad litem judges has been temporarily increased; several ad litem judges have been authorized by the Security Council to serve beyond the three-year maximum; and some Trial Chambers have been split into sections which may consist only of ad litem judges), the differences in the conditions of service of the two categories of judge continue to be justified. daccess-ods.un.org

在决定是否应将现用于常任法官的养恤金办法扩及连续服务3年以上的审案法官时，大会似可考虑由于 两法庭业务的变化(即审案法官的数量已临时增加；若干审案法官被安全 理事会授权在3年上限后继续服务；以及一些审判分庭被分成若干部 分，其中只包括审案法官)，两类法官服务条 件上的差异 是否 仍有 理由继 续存在。