[Case]

Wen and Ma got married in 1997. After marriage, Wen was doing business outside, while Ma was taking care of household chores at home. Wen earned some money from doing business, and his living conditions became increasingly prosperous. He became increasingly dissatisfied with Ma, constantly finding fault and scolding him. In 2002, Wen filed for divorce. Considering that both children have grown up and there is a long-standing relationship between the couple, Ma strongly disagrees. In order to achieve the purpose of divorce, Wen repeatedly threatened Ma, but did not make Ma agree to his request for divorce. Wen turned to deception. So, he told Ma that the house where the two are currently living will be demolished, and if the two divorce, the government will provide more compensation. Ma believed it true and signed a divorce agreement with him under the temptation of Wen. Wen was worried that Ma might see the flaws, so when signing the divorce agreement, he was very hasty and simply stated that both spouses voluntarily divorced, without making any agreement on the relevant issues. Wen entrusted an acquaintance to find the staff of the marriage registration agency and processed divorce registration for the two without Ma's presence. After divorce, Wen moved alone to a new house purchased in the city center and lived with his mistress, ignoring Ma and his two children. After Ma found out that he had been deceived, he went to the relevant department to request the revocation of his divorce registration and the restoration of his marital relationship with Wen.

[Focus]

The focus of this case is whether the divorce registration obtained through fraudulent means is valid. In this regard, the court has two different opinions in handling this case: one opinion holds that Wen reached a divorce agreement with Ma through fraudulent means and, in the absence of Ma, violated the legal procedures by registering the divorce. Therefore, the divorce registration between Wen and Ma should be declared invalid in accordance with the law. Another view is that although Wen reached a divorce agreement with Ma through fraudulent means and registered the divorce without Ma's presence, the parties have already divorced, and legally speaking, their marital relationship has been dissolved.

According to the Marriage Law and the Regulations on the Administration of Marriage Registration in China, an agreed divorce between the parties must meet the following three conditions: 1. The agreed divorce must be fully voluntary by both parties. If both men and women voluntarily divorce, divorce shall be granted. If one party uses fraud, coercion, or other means to reach a divorce agreement against the other party's true will, after verification by the marriage authority, the registration shall not be granted. 2. The parties have made appropriate arrangements in the divorce agreement regarding issues such as children and property. The marriage registration authority shall issue a divorce certificate when it is confirmed that both parties are indeed voluntary and have properly dealt with their children and property issues. The divorce agreement should clearly state the parties' intention to divorce, child support, financial assistance for one spouse's financial difficulties, and the handling of property and debts. If the parties involved fail to properly handle issues such as the upbringing of their children and the division of property in the divorce agreement, the marriage registration authority cannot handle the divorce registration for them. 3. Both parties must personally go to the marriage registration authority to handle divorce registration. If the parties are divorced, both parties must personally apply for divorce registration at the marriage registration management office in the place where one party's household registration is located. Divorce registration is the act of terminating the identity relationship between the parties involved, which must be handled by the parties themselves and cannot be represented by others.

In this case, Wen used deception to reach a divorce agreement with Ma against his true will, which violated the relevant provisions of the Marriage Law. The divorce agreement has no legal effect; From the perspective of the Civil Code, the divorce agreement reached between Ma and Wen in violation of his true intention is considered invalid civil behavior. The divorce agreement between Wen and Ma did not include provisions on the custody of children and the division of property, which does not comply with the requirements of the Marriage Law for negotiated divorce; Wen used the method of entrusting acquaintances and going through the back door to handle divorce registration without Ma's presence, which violated legal procedures. Therefore, the divorce registration between Chinese and Ma in this case is invalid and should be revoked in accordance with the law.