The duty of fidelity is the proper meaning of the relationship between husband and wife, but in real life, when the marital relationship is endangered due to the emergence of the emotional foundation of the husband and wife and other factors, one or both spouses will often enter into a commitment similar to that one of the spouses should perform certain acts, and if certain acts occur again, they should leave the house or perform certain obligations, which is the so-called "loyalty agreement" in practice. So can the validity of the agreement be confirmed by judicial practice?
Article 1043 of the Civil Code stipulates that families shall establish a good family style, promote family virtues, and attach importance to the construction of family civilization. Husbands and wives should be faithful, respectful and caring for each other; Family members shall respect the elderly, love the young, help each other, and maintain equal, harmonious, and civilized marriage and family relations. This article is an advocacy and oath clause, which embodies the spirit of the rule of law and the rule of ethics at the same time.
With regard to the duty of loyalty in this article, the Supreme People's Court clearly stated in the book Understanding and Application of this article that "the signing of a loyalty agreement between husband and wife shall be voluntarily and consciously performed by the parties in accordance with the principle of good faith, and the law does not prohibit the signing of such agreements between husband and wife, but it does not give such agreements enforceability".
It can be seen from this that the law does not prohibit the parties from voluntarily performing in accordance with the loyalty agreement, but if one party sues the court for the performance of the loyalty agreement, the court will not support the claim of the complaining party based on the content of the agreement. In this sense, the loyalty agreement is invalid.
But is an unenforceable loyalty agreement completely void at the litigation stage? It is true that if it is simply stipulated in the fidelity agreement that one of the parties is unfaithful in the marriage, then the agreement has the same effect as above.
However, the author believes thatSimply when there is no crisis in the marital relationship, there are few formal loyalty agreements in real life, because marriage itself is the belief of "holding the hand of the son and growing old with the son". In most cases, a fidelity agreement is signed in order to strengthen the marital relationship when one of the parties commits unfaithfulness in the marital relationship.
Therefore, if the parties to the agreement specify the unfaithful behavior of one party in the loyalty agreement, they can claim rights against the dishonest party under the divorce damages system when the dishonest behavior occurs again and the relationship between the husband and wife has indeed broken down. The fidelity agreement can also make one party pay more attention to the binding effect of the fidelity agreement, so as to repair the marital relationship and return to married life.
On the one hand, if the claim is solely based on the loyalty agreement and the payment of liquidated damages, the claim is not enforceable, and on the other hand, if the content of the loyalty agreement can prove that one party was at fault under Article 1091 of the Civil Code during the existence of the marital relationship, then the innocent party can claim divorce damages at the time of divorce.
Finally, I wish everyone a happy marriage!