Gu and Zhu established a relationship after being introduced to each other at the end of 2012, and then registered their marriage. After marriage, Zhu lived in Gu's house and lived in the same room. The couple did not have sex after the marriage, and the parties separated on April 8, 2015, after an argument over it. On April 12, 2015, Zhu went to the hospital accompanied by the parents of both parties and was diagnosed with an intact membrane.
When the two parties were engaged and married, Gu paid Zhu's father a total of 130,000 yuan as a bride price through the introducer Zhang. In addition, Zhu deposited 50,000 yuan of the joint property of the husband and wife in the bank in the name of his father.
Due to Gu's frequent drunkenness and late night home, as well as Gu's personality or physiological reasons, the two parties could not form normal husband and wife communication and exchanges in their common life, resulting in the relationship between the husband and wife becoming increasingly estranged, and now the relationship between the husband and wife has completely broken down, and Zhu sued the court for divorce.
During the trial, Gu said that the relationship between husband and wife with Zhu had indeed completely broken down and agreed to divorce. However, on the issue of bride price, the two sides disagreed.
This court held that, according to the content of Gu's appeal, he expressed his acceptance of the content of the original judgment granting the parties a divorce, mainly aiming at the original judgment that did not support his appeal on issues such as the return of the bride price, the division of common property, and the spiritual solace. In view of the above issues, this court makes the following comments:
On the issue of the return of the bride price. Gu believes that according to Article 10 of the Interpretation II of the Marriage Law, although the two parties have gone through the marriage registration formalities but do not live together, Zhu should return the bride price. This court noted that although Gu and Zhu registered their marriage on xx-xx-xx, neither party had sexual intercourse until April 8, 2015. On this ground, Gu argued that there was no fact that the two parties were essentially "living together". The Court is of the opinion thatWhile sex may be an important element of marriage, it is not essential. China's marriage law does not regard sexual intercourse as an obligation between husband and wife, and whether or not to have sex should be regarded as a voluntary act when the husband and wife are happy. And judging from the statements of both parties, there are many reasons for not having sex, and both parties have certain responsibilities. In this case, Zhu moved into Gu's house immediately after marriage, and the two had a common living room and lived with Gu's family for more than a year. Although Zhu usually goes back to his parents' house on weekends and changes his clothes, and does not care about family affairs, the above behavior should be understandable as a newly married person, and the fact that the two parties live together cannot be denied. The original trial court's determination that the two parties lived together had a factual basis. Gu's claim for the return of the bride price did not meet the requirements of Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Interpretation II of the Marriage Law, and the original trial court did not support it, and it was not improper.
On the division of common property. According to the facts ascertained in the original examination, the joint property of the husband and wife is a deposit of 50,000 yuan. Gu believed that the money was transferred to his father's name by Zhu and deliberately concealed the property. However, judging from the circumstances of the original trial, Zhu expressed his approval and truthfully stated when Gu proposed this paragraph, which did not belong to the situation of "intentionally concealing property", and the provisions of Article 47 of the Marriage Law should not be applied, and the division of the original trial court was not improper. As for the issue of spiritual solace。China's "Marriage Law" has clear provisions on compensation for moral damages in marriage, and Gu's claim for spiritual solatium on the grounds that Zhu refused to have sex with him lacks factual and legal basis, and the original trial court did not support it, nor was it improper.
Beijing Guanying lawyer believes that regarding the rights and obligations in marriage, we cannot dogmatically take clockwork as the basis, the details of marriage and family life are complicated, and the law cannot be exhaustive. In this case, the court also made a fair judgment based on comprehensive consideration of all aspects. Although the sexual life of the husband and wife may be one of the important elements in marriage, it is not a necessary element, and the Marriage Law of China does not make sexual activity an obligation between husband and wife.