As one of the three major relief systems for divorce, financial compensation for divorce is specifically stipulated in Article 1088 of the Civil Code, that is, if one of the husband and wife bears more obligations due to raising children, taking care of the elderly, assisting the other party in work, etc., he or she has the right to request compensation from the other party at the time of divorce, and the other party shall give compensation. This article is amended on the basis of article 40 of the Marriage Law, abolishing the provision that economic compensation for divorce is only applicable under the agreed property system, and expanding the scope of economic compensation to apply equally to the statutory property system and the agreed property system.
In the understanding and application of this article, it is clarified that the conditions for the application of this article are: 1. It shall be applied regardless of the type of marital property ownership; 2. The premise of economic compensation is to bear more family obligations; 3. Economic compensation needs to be proposed by one party on its own initiative, and the court shall not take the initiative to apply it; 4. Financial compensation must be filed at the time of divorce.
Because the "premise of assuming family obligations" in this article is difficult to quantify, although it is necessary to analyze the circumstances under which one of the spouses will be supported by judicial practice when he or she files a divorce financial compensation, it can provide a useful perspective for the parties by searching for specific cases in judicial practice
Case.
1. The case of a divorce dispute between Gao and Dong.
The court in this case decided to pay 70,000 yuan in compensation for housework based on Dong's 8 years of service in the army after marriage, and Gao Moumou's birth and raising of two children.
Case.
2. The case of property disputes after the divorce of Liu and Jiang.
The divorce agreement between the parties in this case stated: "The husband shall pay the woman 10,000 yuan in compensation for housework, which shall be paid within 18 months from the date of divorce". The court confirmed the contents of the divorce agreement.
Case.
3. A case of property dispute between Liu X 1 and Liu X 2 after their divorce.
In this case, Liu X 1 was unable to live independently due to physical disability, and Liu X 2 took care of him for ten years, during which Liu X 2 assumed more obligations, and Liu X 1 should be compensated, but considering Liu X 1's ability to pay, the court decided that Liu X 1 should pay compensation of 5,000 yuan at its discretion.
Case.
4. The divorce dispute between Li X 1 and Qiu X
In this case, Li X 1 has been working in a public institution and has a relatively stable income, Qiu X has no job, and most of his time and energy is used for housework, and the court comprehensively considered the duration of the two parties' life together after marriage, the time and energy invested by Qiu X to undertake family obligations, Li X 1's ability to pay, and the opportunity cost of personal growth paid by Qiu X to undertake more housework, and other factors, and decided to order Li X 1 to pay Qiu X a lump sum of 20,000 yuan for divorce financial assistance.
Case.
5. The divorce dispute case of Wang X 1 and Sun X
In this case, the parties have registered their marriage for more than 20 years, and Wang Mou1 has been stationed abroad before leaving the company in 2021, neglecting to take care of his children, the elderly and his family. As for the amount of compensation, based on the actual circumstances of this case, the court decided to set it at 60,000 yuan.
It can be seen from the above-mentioned judicial adjudication cases that, in addition to the agreement between the two parties, the premise of "bearing family obligations" is mainly quantified in judicial practice from factors such as the work, physical condition, income, and marriage time of one of the spouses.
For spouses in divorce disputes, the author suggests that evidence should be sorted out in a timely manner to assert rights. After all, the law does not protect the right on the sleeper.