Typical Cases of Marriage and Family Disputes in the Theme Education Activity of "Promoting Justice through Publicity to Build Core Values"

catalogue

1. Property dispute case after divorce between Yu and Gao

2. Wang v. Jiang Divorce Case

3. Zhang v. Guo Jia, Guo Yi, and Guo Bing in the case of alimony dispute

4. Bo Xiaomou v. Bo's alimony case

5. Guo sues Jiao for changing the custody relationship case

6. Ma Xiaomou v. Ma Xiaomou's dispute over alimony

7. Property Dispute Case between Li and Sun after Divorce

8. Liu Mou v. Liu Jia and Liu Yi in a dispute over alimony

9. Sun applied to execute Peng's alimony case

10. Yu Mou v. Yu Mouwang in a dispute over alimony

11. Jia v. Liu's Maintenance Dispute Case

12. Dispute over Liability for Damage after Divorce between Zhou and Zhang

13. Guo sues and Lv divorces

14. Han Accuses Zhang of New Abandonment Case

15. Liu Mousen v. Li Moumei Divorce Dispute Case

16. Fu Xiaomou v. Fu Peiqiang in the dispute over alimony

17. Liu Moumou sues Yuan Yi in a dispute over maintenance

18. Chen Mouqi and defendant Chen Mouming's dispute over alimony

19. Li Moumou and the defendant Zi Mouxiang and other six people's support dispute case

20. Dispute over the upbringing of children born out of wedlock between Chen and Liang

21. Dispute over Visitation Rights between He and Jiang

22. Weng Moumou's intentional injury case

23. Li and Yang Disputes over Improper Enrichment

24. Case of divorce dispute between Peng and Li

25. Yang sues Wang for changing custody rights

26. Wang Li v. Zhang Wei's Cohabitation and Property Separation Case

27. Case of Wang Peng and Xu Lili Returning the Betrothal Gift

28. Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping's Divorce Dispute Case

29. Han Li v. Yang Yanming's Visitation Rights Dispute

30. Xing Guizhi v. Yin Zhigang's Return of Possession Case

31. Zhang v. Cheng's Body Rights Dispute Case

32. Liu Ping v. Kong Xiao Divorce Dispute Case

33. Chen Changzhen v. Chen Lucheng, Xu Lei, and Xu Chunyan in the Case of Maintenance Dispute

34. Plaintiff Li Bolin and Li Ning v. Defendant Li Tao in the Dispute over Maintenance Fees

35. Li Moufu v. Li Jia and Li Yi in the dispute over alimony

36. Marriage and Family Dispute Case between Zhang and Jiang

37. Dispute over Marital Support between Huang and Zhang

38. Dispute case of sister-in-law requesting son's support from the "uncle"

39. The divorce dispute case between plaintiff Tang and defendant Jiang

40. The dispute between Mrs. Zhang and her children's support

41. Zhu Shaochang v. Zhu Zhengfang, Zhu Zhengde, and Zhu Lixiang in dispute over alimony

42. Feng v. Cai Dispute over Termination of Adoption Relationship

43. The divorce case of plaintiff Lv v. defendant Xu

44. Ma v. Wei's Child Care Dispute Case

45. He v. Zhou's custody dispute case

46. Lv Fazhen and others v. Li Xiangyou and four others in a dispute over maintenance

47. Divorce dispute between Zhao and Yang

48. Sun v. Tian's Divorce Dispute Case

49. Di Guixia v. Defendants Li Zhiming, Li Zhigang, Li Zhiqiang, and Li Yajie in the Case of Maintenance Dispute

1

Property dispute case after divorce between Yu and Gao

（1） Basic facts of the case

Yu and Gao registered their marriage on November 11, 2001, and gave birth to their son Gao in September 2003. Due to emotional discord, the two parties resolved their divorce in court on September 2, 2009. When the two parties divorced, they did not divide the jointly owned house located at No. 59 in a certain community in Beijing. Instead, they agreed through an agreement that the ownership of the house would belong to Gao, the son of both parties, after Gao paid off the loan. In January 2013, Yu filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing, stating that the loan for Housing No. 59 has not been fully repaid, and the property rights have not been changed to Gao's name, meaning that it has not been actually gifted to Gao. Currently, it is still in a state of shared property between Mr. and Gao, and therefore there is no plan to donate the part of the house that belongs to him to Gao. The court advocates for the revocation of the previous donation behavior, and the court will divide Housing No. 59 according to law.

Gao believes that at the time of divorce, both parties had already gifted the house agreement to Gao. It was precisely because Yu agreed to give the house to Gao that I agreed to other clauses in the divorce agreement that increased my obligations, such as repaying the couple's joint debt of 45000 yuan separately after the divorce. I believe that divorce has caused great harm to children, and for the sake of minors, we should not support the lawsuit request of someone.

（2） Judgment results

The effective judgment of the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing believes that both parties were aware that House 59 was the joint property of the couple during the existence of the marriage relationship. For the handling of the disputed house, Yu and Gao had already reached an agreement, and this agreement was reached by both parties at the time of divorce, that is, the agreement to give House 59 to their son is based on the dissolution of their marital status relationship. After the divorce of Mr. and Mr. Gao, Mr. Yu did not agree to fulfill the agreement on the handling of the disputed house and requested the division of the disputed house. His legal basis for the lawsuit was insufficient and it also violated integrity. Therefore, the court does not support the lawsuit request of XXX.

On April 24, 2013, the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing issued a civil judgment (2013) Dongminchu Zi No. 02551: rejecting the lawsuit request of Yu. After the verdict was pronounced, Yu appealed to the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court. On July 11, 2013, the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court issued a judgment (2013) No. 09734, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of the dispute between the two parties in this case is the agreement in the divorce agreement to donate the jointly owned property of the couple to their underage children. After the divorce, whether one party has the right to revoke the donated property before the registration of the change. In the divorce agreement, the agreement between the two parties to donate their common property to underage children, as well as the termination of marriage, child rearing, division of common property, repayment of common debts, and compensation for divorce damages, are prerequisites and outcomes of each other, forming a "package" solution. If one party is allowed to retract, the "integrity" of the divorce agreement between the male and female parties will be undermined. Allowing the parties to retract their part of the property after the marriage relationship has been dissolved and irreversible will encourage the behavior of divorce and malicious possession of the property, which is against honesty and credibility, and is not conducive to protecting the rights and interests of underage children. Therefore, when one party wishes to unilaterally revoke the gift in accordance with Article 186 (1) of the Contract Law after divorce, they should also obtain the consent of both parties. Without the consent of the other party who is a joint owner, they have no right to unilaterally revoke the gift.

2

Wang v. Jiang Divorce Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Wang and Jiang got to know each other through an introduction and registered their marriage. They had no children after marriage. Due to their short acquaintance time and limited mutual understanding, their marriage was hasty and their emotional foundation was weak. After marriage, due to Jiang's excessive drinking, he had domestic violence against the plaintiff and often punched and kicked the plaintiff due to trivial life matters. In 2009, Jiang beat up the plaintiff for no reason and caused him to run away from home. Hou Wang filed a divorce lawsuit and requested a judgment: 1. Dissolve the marriage relationship between the two parties; 2. Jiang paid a mental loss fee of 50000 yuan; 3. Divide common property in accordance with the law. The litigation fees in this case will be borne by Jiang. Wang provided the agreement written by Jiang and relevant witnesses to prove that Jiang had engaged in domestic violence against him during the marriage.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing believes that if either party requests divorce, they can bring a lawsuit to the court. If the relationship has indeed broken down, divorce should be granted. In this case, both parties agreed to divorce, indicating that their relationship had completely broken down. Therefore, the court granted Wang's request for divorce. Wang's request for compensation for mental damage from Jiang was supported by the court due to the existence of domestic violence during Jiang's marriage. The specific amount shall be determined by the court in accordance with the law. Therefore, the court ruled that Wang and Jiang were divorced (property division omitted) and that Jiang would pay compensation for Wang's mental damage.

（3） Typical significance

Couples should respect and love each other, and live in harmony. However, unfortunately, the phenomenon of violence between spouses causing personal injury and mental pain to one party still exists. Domestic violence, as an important inducement in divorce cases, still greatly affects the stability and harmony of the family. Domestic violence refers to the behavior of the perpetrator causing certain consequences to the physical, mental, and other aspects of their family members through beating, bundling, maiming, forcibly restricting personal freedom, or other means. Persistent and frequent domestic violence constitutes abuse. According to the sampling statistics of 620 divorce cases settled by Dongcheng Court, Fengtai Court, and Tongzhou Court in 2013 by the Beijing Court, divorce cases involving domestic violence accounted for 9% of the total number of selected divorce cases. Although the proportion of the number is not high, most cases involving domestic violence have intense conflicts, low mediation rates, and high final divorce rates. China's Marriage Law clearly prohibits domestic violence, stipulating that if one spouse engages in domestic violence against the other, and mediation fails, divorce should be granted. If domestic violence leads to divorce, the innocent party has the right to request compensation for damages at the time of divorce. The Anti Domestic Violence Law, which is currently under review by the National People's Congress, has also established a series of institutional arrangements to protect vulnerable groups in the family and curb domestic violence. This case is a typical case of divorce caused by domestic violence. The people's court supports the divorce request and compensation request of the innocent party in accordance with the law, and gives a clear negative evaluation to the behavior of domestic violence that violates the law and socialist morality.

3

Zhang v. Guo Jia, Guo Yi, and Guo Bing in the case of alimony dispute

（1） Basic facts of the case

Zhang and her husband Guo have three children together, namely the eldest son Guo Jia, the second son Guo Yi, and the youngest daughter Guo Bing. On April 25, 1985, Guo signed a family separation agreement with his eldest son Guo Jia and second son Guo Yi, which stipulated the following provisions on support issues: "1. The eldest son Guo Jia supported his mother and the second son Guo Yi supported his father. 2. Before the age of 60, each of the elder brothers gave a monthly allowance of 5 yuan, and after the age of 60, each person gave a monthly allowance of 10 yuan." After Guo passed away in August 2010, the second son Guo Yi buried Guo, and his mother Zhang lived alone thereafter. On October 14, 2014, Zhang sued his three children to the Huairou District People's Court in Beijing, demanding that they live with their second son Guo Yi, their eldest son Guo Jia pay 1000 yuan in alimony, and the other two children each pay 500 yuan in alimony. The medical expenses are shared by the three children.

During the court trial, Guo Jia, the eldest son, claimed that he had always supported his mother and borne excessive alimony expenses; The second son Guo Yi stated that during the separation, it was agreed that his mother would be supported by his eldest son Guo Jia, and his father would be supported by him. He had already supported his father according to the agreement and buried his father, and could not accept the same responsibility as his eldest son Guo Jia; Guo Bing, the youngest daughter, claimed that she did not specify any responsibility in the maintenance agreement.

（2） Judgment result

The Huairou District People's Court of Beijing held that although Zhang's eldest son Guo Jia and second son Guo Yi signed a separation agreement in 1985 and fulfilled their respective obligations in accordance with the separation agreement, they could not completely exempt the second son Guo Yi and the youngest daughter Guo Bing from their mother's maintenance obligations. The plaintiff Zhang has a monthly income of 1200 yuan and is willing to be taken care of by his second son Guo Yi. Therefore, it is ruled that the plaintiff Zhang lives with his second son Guo Yi, and the eldest son Guo Jia pays a monthly alimony of 300 yuan. The eldest son Guo Jia bears half of the plaintiff Zhang's medical expenses, while the second son Guo Yi and the youngest daughter Guo Bing each bear a quarter of the medical expenses.

（3） Typical significance

Article 21 (3) of the Marriage Law of China stipulates: "When a child fails to fulfill their obligation to support, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand support from their children." The plaintiff is now elderly, weak and sick, has lost their ability to work, and indeed needs to be supported by their children, and their children have the obligation to support the plaintiff.

Admittedly, in families with multiple children, it is reasonable and legal to sign a maintenance agreement to support parents separately, and it is also legally permissible. Article 20 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly in China stipulates: "With the consent of the elderly, the caregivers can sign an agreement to fulfill their maintenance obligations. The content of the maintenance agreement shall not violate the provisions of the law and the wishes of the elderly." However, if the objective situation changes, such as a child clearly unable to support their father or mother, if the father or mother requests maintenance, other children cannot be exempted. This is also the meaning of Article 21 (3) of the Marriage Law, as the obligation of maintenance is a mandatory legal obligation.

In reality, many children still have feudal ideas when signing maintenance agreements, especially in rural areas, such as "married women, splashed water" and "married women have no obligation to support their parents", and daughters' maintenance obligations to their parents are artificially exempted. However, legally speaking, children have a duty to support their parents, and daughters have a legal support relationship with their parents regardless of whether they get married or not, and are not exempted for any reason. For the exemption of the second son Guo Yi from his mother's maintenance obligations in the maintenance agreement, it is an agreement that exempts the legal obligation of the second son Guo Yi to his mother, and should be considered an invalid agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for all three children to fulfill their maintenance obligations should be supported.

Regarding Zhang's residence and daily care issues, Zhang expressed his willingness to live with his second son Guo Yi, who also agreed and respected the opinions of the parties involved. Regarding the amount of alimony and the proportion of medical expenses to be borne, considering that the second son Guo Yi has fulfilled all his obligations to support his father, the eldest son Guo Jia should bear more alimony, reflecting the balance between law and human relations, and better promoting the harmony of family relationships.

4

Bo Xiaomou v. Bo's alimony case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The legal representative of the plaintiff Bo Xiaomou, Liu, and the defendant Bo were originally married. On January 26, 2011, they had a son Bo Xiaomou, who is the plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff's legal representative and the defendant agreed to divorce on April 26, 2011 at the Dongcheng District Civil Affairs Bureau, and then remarried on June 8, 2011. On May 27, 2012, the two signed a marital separation agreement, which stipulated that during the separation period, the plaintiff would be raised by his mother Liu, and the defendant would pay a monthly maintenance fee of 1500 yuan, which would be paid before the 12th of each month. If the maintenance fee was not transferred within the time limit starting from the second month, a penalty of 30000 yuan per occurrence would be compensated. From June 2012 to October 2012, the defendant paid the plaintiff a monthly maintenance fee of 1500 yuan, and no longer paid from November 2012. On May 28, 2014, the plaintiff's legal representative and the defendant were divorced by the People's Court of Zhuozhou City, Hebei Province. The plaintiff was sentenced to live with his mother Liu, and the defendant Bo paid the plaintiff a monthly maintenance fee of 1900 yuan from June 2014 until the plaintiff Bo Xiaomou turned 18 years old. Later, Bo Xiaomou sued Bo to the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing, requesting payment of maintenance fees from December 2012 to May 2014, and paying breach of contract damages as agreed.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing held that parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children, and the party who does not directly raise their children should bear part or all of the support fees. The amount of expenses to be borne and the length of the term shall be agreed upon by both parties. When parents fail to fulfill their obligations of upbringing, underage children have the right to demand parental support payments. The plaintiff's legal representative Liu and the defendant Bo have reached an agreement on the issue of child support during their separation period. The agreement on the amount of child support is a true expression of both parties' intentions and does not violate mandatory legal provisions. The defendant should fulfill their payment obligations as agreed. Therefore, this court supports the plaintiff's request to pay the overdue child support; But because the payment of maintenance fees is not based on a contract, the agreed penalty terms between the two parties are unfounded in law, and our court does not support the plaintiff's request for compensation for the penalty. According to Article 21, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing has made the following judgment:

1、 Within seven days after the effective date of this judgment, the defendant Bo shall make up for the plaintiff Bo Xiaomou's maintenance fee of 28500 yuan from November 2012 to May 2014;

2、 Reject the plaintiff Bo Xiaomou's other litigation requests.

（3） Typical significance

In this case, the plaintiff's legal representative and the defendant signed a marital separation agreement, which stipulated that one party should raise the illegitimate child, and the other party should pay monthly maintenance fees. The agreement also stipulated that a penalty should be paid for delayed performance. The payment of alimony is based on the legal obligation of being a parent, rather than an agreement between the parents. This agreement can and can only specify the amount of alimony, and this legal obligation cannot be waived by agreement between the parents. Therefore, the performance of citizens' legal obligations can only be constrained by laws and regulations, and should not be constrained by the liquidated damages agreed upon between citizens. The original intention of the establishment of maintenance fees is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of underage children after divorce. It is a method of assigning obligations to underage children, striving to restore their lives to the state before their parents divorced. The maintenance fee is essentially a guarantee for minors, therefore, the caregiver should not profit from the child's maintenance fee in the form of liquidated damages.

5

Guo sues Jiao for changing the custody relationship case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Guo and Jiao were originally married, but on March 30, 2012, they were divorced through court mediation. It was determined that Jiao Xiaomou (born on February 28, 2009), the illegitimate daughter, would be taken care of by Jiao. Jiao has now remarried. Later, Guo filed a lawsuit with the court on the grounds that Jiao did not take good care of Jiao Xiaomou and did not cooperate with his visit, demanding that Jiao Xiaomou be raised by himself and pay a monthly maintenance fee of 3000 yuan until Jiao Xiaomou is 18 years old or above.

（2） Judgment results

During the court trial, after consulting with Jiao Xiaomou, he expressed his willingness to live and live with his mother. After trial, the original court ruled that: 1. The legitimate daughter Jiao Xiaomou was changed to be raised by Guo from the effective date of the judgment. 2、 Jiao shall pay a child support fee of 800 yuan to the legitimate daughter Jiao Xiaomou before the 10th day of each month after the judgment takes effect, until Jiao Xiaomou reaches the age of 18. 3、 Jiao will pick up Jiao Xiaomou from Guo for a visit at 9:00 am on the last Saturday of each month after the judgment takes effect, and will send Jiao Xiaomou back to Guo before 5:00 pm on the same day. 4、 Reject Guo's other litigation requests.

After the judgment, Jiao was not satisfied and appealed to the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, believing that the facts determined in the original judgment were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. Guo did not have children and did not pay maintenance fees during the divorce, failing to fulfill his mother's obligations; Jiao Xiaomou has now started kindergarten and is deeply loved by his family. The original verdict is that changing the custody rights is not conducive to Jiao Xiaomou's physical and mental health; At the same time, it is proposed that the first instance court misinterpreted Jiao Xiaomou's true meaning, stating that "willing to live with his mother" refers to willingness to live with his stepmother, rather than his biological mother Guo. Therefore, it is requested that the second instance court investigate the facts and change the judgment in accordance with the law. Guo agreed to the original judgment.

In the trial of the second instance court, the court met and communicated with Jiao Xiaomou, and found that he did not have sufficient cognitive and expressive abilities regarding the issue of this case. After the second instance, it was found that when Jiao and Guo divorced, the issue of child support had been confirmed in March 2012 through the effective civil mediation agreement of the Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing. Since the divorce, both parties have also executed this civil mediation agreement. Currently, Jiao Xiaomou has been raised by Jiao and has started kindergarten. He can also be taken care of by his grandparents and has a relatively stable living environment. Currently, Guo and Jiao have similar parenting abilities, and their living conditions are not significantly better than Jiao. Guo has not provided strong evidence to prove that Jiao had legal conditions that were detrimental to the physical and mental health of minors during the period of raising Jiao Xiaomou. The photos of Jiao Xiaomou being burned submitted by him are also insufficient to prove that Jiao had frequent misconduct during the process of raising Jiao Xiaomou. Therefore, the court believes that it is more appropriate for Jiao Xiaomou to be raised by Jiao. After the divorce of both parents, changing the upbringing relationship in a short period of time is not conducive to maintaining a relatively stable living environment for Jiao Xiaomou, but also has an impact on his normal life and growth. Therefore, Guo's lawsuit request is not supported by the court. The court supported the appeal grounds proposed by Jiao. Based on this, the second instance court's final judgment: 1. Revoke the original judgment. 2、 Reject Guo's lawsuit request.

（3） Typical significance

After examination in the second instance, it was found that the issue of Jiao Xiaomou's upbringing has been effectively resolved and resolved by the court through mediation. It has been only over a year since then, and there have been no significant changes in the upbringing conditions of both parties. Moreover, Jiao Xiaomou is currently studying in kindergarten, and the living and learning environment is relatively stable. hasty changes are not conducive to maintaining a stable living state. During the trial process of the original trial court, the court consulted Jiao Xiaomou (only 4 years old) in court and used it as one of the reasons for changing custody. However, Jiao insisted that the court had misunderstood Jiao Xiaomou's meaning, and that the term "mother" referred to Jiao Xiaomou's stepmother rather than his biological mother Guo. The presiding judge of the second instance considered that if the case was simply changed, it would further intensify the conflicts between the two parties, causing Jiao Xiaomou's upbringing and visitation issues to lose the basis for dialogue, and deepening the conflict between the two families.

In order to determine whether it is appropriate for the original trial court to seek the opinions of Jiao Xiaomou, the presiding judge and members of the collegial panel of the second instance found that Jiao Xiaomou did not have the corresponding ability to understand and express the issues of litigation disputes after meeting and communicating with Jiao Xiaomou. In order to alleviate the conflict between the two parties and alleviate Guo's longing, the judge, with the consent of both parties, specially organized a courtroom family visit in the court garden. During the visit, members of the two families and Jiao Xiaomou enjoyed the joy of their family. In a harmonious atmosphere, the judge took advantage of the situation to carry out persuasion work. In the end, Guo agreed to the court's decision to change the sentence, and Jiao also expressed in person that Guo could take Jiao Xiaomou away for visit at any time, and the case was successfully resolved. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the judgment, the judge added a separate paragraph in the judgment, stating: "Father's love and mother's love are indispensable for minors. The court hopes that Jiao and Guo can start from ensuring the healthy growth of minors and properly handle the issue of visitation and support on the basis of the original divorce mediation agreement, jointly creating a harmonious and harmonious atmosphere for Jiao Xiaomou, and creating a good living and learning environment

This case is a case where the focus of the parties' conflicts is on the issue of child visits. Although they are children of divorced families, they should not be lacking in the emotional world. The Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, following the principle of promoting the growth of minors, attempts to carry out "family visits in court" and explore the forms of exercise of visitation rights that vary depending on the individual case. This case is a typical case of successfully resolving disputes through this measure. After obtaining the consent of both parties, the judge arranged for two families to visit Jiao Xiaomou in a warm and peaceful atmosphere, and conducted legal analysis to guide the parties in rational litigation, ultimately leading to a consensus between the two parties and achieving good judicial results. The "courtroom family visit" provides an opportunity for the party who does not directly raise their children to communicate and exchange with them face-to-face, narrowing the emotional distance, helping the parties to resolve disputes reasonably from the interests of the children, and also awakening parents' care for their children, encouraging them to quickly step out of the shadow of divorce and work together to create a harmonious and stable growth environment for their children.

6

Ma Xiaomou v. Ma Xiaomou's dispute over alimony

（1） Basic facts of the case

Ma's legal representative, Li, and Ma Xiaomou were originally married, and Ma was the legitimate child of both parties. On December 1, 2011, the two parties divorced. The divorce agreement stipulated that their legitimate son Ma Moumou would be raised by the woman, and the man would pay a total of 1500 yuan before the 10th of each month. The maintenance fee would be increased annually according to the situation, and Ma Mou's expenses in various aspects such as study and medical care would be jointly borne by both parties. From February 15 to February 22, 2013, Ma was admitted to Beijing Children's Hospital for treatment due to intermittent exotropia and binocular refractive error, with a total medical expenses of 13422.02 yuan. In 2010 and 2012, Ma participated in a children's Go training program in Beijing and spent a total of 11105 yuan on education. In 2010, 2011, and 2013, Ma participated in a school's learning tutoring class and spent a total of 11105 yuan on education. In 2013, Li filed a lawsuit with the Changping District People's Court in Beijing, requesting an increase in the monthly maintenance fee payable and ordering Ma to pay Ma's medical and educational training expenses.

（2） Review results

Agreements or judgments regarding children's living and education expenses shall not prevent children from making reasonable demands to either parent, if necessary, in excess of the amount originally agreed upon in the agreement or judgment. According to Article 21 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (1), "maintenance expenses include expenses such as children's living expenses, education expenses, medical expenses, etc.". However, it should not be assumed that after paying a fixed amount of monthly maintenance fees, there is no need to pay for medical expenses. Instead, consideration should be given to the reasons and specific amounts of expenses for upbringing, education, and medical expenses, while also taking into account the interests and fairness of both spouses. Therefore, the maintenance fees stipulated in our country include education and medical expenses, which should be understood as including basic education and medical expenses, and should not include large amounts of medical and educational expenses that must be objectively incurred for the benefit of children.

At the same time, in order to protect the interests of minors and promote their comprehensive physical and mental development, the law appropriately encourages minors to participate in certain extracurricular tutoring courses based on their personal talents and hobbies. In this case, Ma Xiaomou participated in a Go tutoring class for a long time, from the period of his parents' marital relationship until after divorce. Ma Xiaomou agreed to this during the marriage relationship, but was informed after divorce but did not explicitly express opposition. At present, there is also a lack of evidence to prove that the Go class is not in line with Ma's interests and does not belong to excessive class registration, so it should be supported in accordance with the law.

The People's Court of Changping District, Beijing issued a civil judgment (2013) Changminchu Zi No. 8252: Firstly, Ma Xiaomou shall pay Ma Moumou a maintenance fee of RMB 2500 before the 10th of each month starting from August 2013, until Ma Moumou reaches the age of 18; 2、 Ma Xiaomou shall pay Ma's medical expenses of 67111 yuan and one cent, and the education expenses of 5552 yuan and fifty cents, within ten days after the effective date of this judgment; 3、 Reject Ma's other litigation requests. Ma Xiaomou appealed after the verdict was pronounced. In 2013, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court issued a judgment (2013) No. 13395, rejecting the appeal and upholding the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The case is simple and the subject matter of the lawsuit is not significant, but it involves the most basic interests and needs of minors, reflecting the conflict between the rising prices in recent years and the relatively lagging concept and legislation of child support fees for minors. In judicial practice, we should focus on the reasonable needs of minors, reject extravagant requests for maintenance fees, and avoid paying too low maintenance fees, following the principle of the best interests of minors. Therefore, whether a request for a large amount of child support fees that is claimed in addition to the fixed monthly payment should be granted should first consider whether the request is in the interests of minors and whether there is a corresponding legal basis; Secondly, whether the request is an expenditure incurred due to the reasonable needs of minors, and the law does not encourage advanced or luxurious demand for maintenance fees; Finally, consideration should be given to the economic capacity and actual burden obligations of the couple, and whether the corresponding expenses borne by one party would lead to an imbalance in the burden of obligations on both parties.

7

Property Dispute Case between Li and Sun after Divorce

（1） Basic facts of the case

Sun and Li were originally husband and wife, but they divorced in 2004 due to a disagreement. The two parties agreed in the agreement that after the divorce of their son Sun Xiaomou, they would be raised by the woman, and Sun would regularly pay Li maintenance and education fees; The current public housing and all items inside the house belong to the female party; There is no common property between the two parties in cash or deposits, and there is no need for further division during divorce; The company, all cars, and other property operated by the man shall belong to the man after divorce. In 2014, when Li, as Sun Xiaomou's legal representative, requested Sun to pay maintenance fees under the "divorce agreement", he discovered that Sun's current house was purchased during his marriage with Li. Sun concealed the house during the divorce. Therefore, Li sued the court on this grounds and demanded that all the houses involved in the case belong to him.

Defendant Sun argued that Li's prosecution period had exceeded two years of statute of limitations, and at that time, the two parties had already separated due to emotional discord since 2001. The house involved in the case was purchased entirely with personal property during the separation period and should be considered personal property. At the same time, the public housing in the divorce agreement had already obtained full ownership at the time of divorce, and compared to the public housing, the current housing had a smaller value at the time of divorce. Moreover, Li had also been informed of the purchase of this house, so there was no hidden motivation or necessity for this house. Moreover, both parties clearly agreed in the divorce agreement that "all property such as cars shall belong to the man after divorce", and their current housing should belong to personal property. Therefore, they do not agree to Li's lawsuit request.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Changping District People's Court of Beijing held that the house in question was purchased during the existence of the marriage relationship between the two parties and was the common property of the couple, which should be divided. The court ruled that the house belonged to Sun, and Sun paid Li over one million yuan in discounted money for the house. After the judgment, both Sun and Li were dissatisfied and filed an appeal to the First People's Court of Beijing.

After trial, the People's Court of Beijing No.1 Middle School held that although there was an agreement in the divorce agreement between the two parties that "the company operated by the man, all property such as cars, will belong to the man after divorce", it is contrary to common sense to cover the house with the word "etc." in the context of the common sense that the value of the property far exceeds that of cars. Therefore, the house was purchased during the existence of the marriage relationship between the two parties and should belong to the common property of both parties. Regarding the appeal reason raised by Sun that Li's lawsuit has passed the statute of limitations, as Sun failed to provide evidence to prove that Li knew of the existence of the house before the end of the statute of limitations, Li stated that he, as Sun Xiaomou's legal representative, only knew of the existence of the house in the case of Sun Xiaomou's compensation in 2014. The explanation is more reasonable. Regarding the issue of housing segmentation, the original trial court determined the market price of the house based on the market price proposed by Li and the market price of the surrounding areas. At the same time, the original trial court, taking into account factors such as Sun's concealment of property and the registration of the involved house under Sun's name, ruled that the house belonged to Sun, and Sun paid Li a discount of over one million yuan, which was not inappropriate. In summary, the Beijing First Central People's Court ultimately rejected the two people's appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

With the development of society, the traditional concept of one-on-one marriage has quietly changed, and the most direct manifestation in the court is the increasing number of cases related to divorce. It is undoubtedly a beautiful thing for two people who used to be like glue, to be honest with each other at a fork in the road when they parted ways without losing their emotions. But real life is often different from fairy tales, where both parties in divorce seem to shift the unhappiness of emotional failure to the petty struggle for common property. Therefore, in the trial of divorce cases involving property division, the court should fairly divide the common property of both parties, which can undoubtedly better quell the unhappiness caused by divorce and promote good cooperation and good separation between both parties. Being vigilant in handling cases involving the concealment of joint property between spouses is not only a punishment for the dishonest party, but also a safeguard of the legitimate rights and interests of the other party. Undoubtedly, it also greatly promotes social stability and harmony.

Article 47 of the Marriage Law clearly stipulates that in the event of divorce, if one party conceals, transfers, sells, or damages the joint property of the husband and wife, or forges debts in an attempt to occupy the other party's property, when dividing the joint property of the husband and wife, the party who conceals, transfers, sells, or damages the joint property of the husband and wife, or forges debts, may have less or no share. After divorce, if the other party discovers the above-mentioned behavior, they can file a lawsuit with the people's court and request the division of the couple's common property again. In this case, the evidence in evidence can prove that Sun's current house was purchased with the joint property of the couple during his marriage with Li, and his claim to purchase the house has been informed that Li lacks evidence support. Therefore, the court recognized the house in question as the joint property of the couple and divided it according to law. At the same time, regarding the issue of the division ratio of concealed property, the court needs to make a comprehensive determination based on the size of the fault and the specific circumstances of the case. Therefore, in this case, Li claimed that Sun had made an error in concealing the joint property of the husband and wife, and requested that the property involved be fully owned by him, which was not supported. There is no airtight wall in the world, and when the relationship between husband and wife comes to an end, both parties should be honest with each other to avoid going to court in the future and paying for their improper behavior, which is not only a loss but also a loss of grace.

8

Liu Mou v. Liu Jia and Liu Yi in a dispute over alimony

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 23, 2014, 77 year old Liu filed a lawsuit with the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing, claiming that he was suffering from various illnesses and financial difficulties, and his two children did not fulfill their maintenance obligations. He requested the court to order each of the two children to pay him 900 yuan in monthly maintenance fees. In the lawsuit, Liu's two children recognized the fact that Liu had medical expenses, but believed that Liu had medical insurance and his pension was sufficient to cover medical and living expenses, and did not agree to Liu's lawsuit request. Liu claimed to have a monthly income of over 4000 yuan, while Liu's eldest son Liu Jia claimed to have a monthly after tax salary of 6500 yuan. Liu's eldest daughter Liu Yi claimed to have no income.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing believes that supporting parents is an obligation that children should fulfill. When their parents are old, children should fulfill their obligations to provide for the elderly financially, take care of their daily lives, and provide spiritual comfort. When children fail to fulfill their maintenance obligations, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their children pay maintenance fees. The plaintiff Liu's request for the second child to bear alimony is not inappropriate, but at the same time, Liu's alimony expenses should be commensurate with his daily living standards and should take into account the child's income situation.

According to the facts found during the trial, Liu Jia, the eldest son of Liu, had a source of income. Although Liu Yi, the eldest daughter of Liu, claimed that she did not have a job, considering that her age was suitable for work, her lack of work could not be a defense reason for refusing to fulfill her maintenance obligations. In the end, it was decided that the two sons and daughters should each pay Liu 800 yuan and 500 yuan in monthly maintenance fees, respectively.

（3） Typical significance

Many children face various reasons for elderly support litigation requests, but most refusal reasons have no legal basis. For example, some children refuse to pay maintenance fees on the grounds that their parents have sufficient income and enjoy medical insurance; Some children are unwilling to fulfill their support obligations on the grounds that they have not lived with one parent for a long time after their parents divorced; In some families with multiple children, children may shift blame towards each other due to differences in economic conditions or when the elderly dispose of property. These reasons will be difficult to be recognized by the court. In addition, the court will consider the physical condition, daily living standards, local consumption level, and whether the caregiver can work normally to determine the amount of alimony when trying alimony disputes. Especially in situations where there are multiple caregivers, due to different economic conditions, they may bear different amounts of alimony.

9

Sun applied to execute Peng's alimony case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The applicant Sun and the defendant Peng were introduced to register their marriage in September 2001 and gave birth to their son Peng Xiaomou in August 2007. Later, conflicts arose between the two parties due to trivial life matters and personality differences, leading to the breakdown of the couple's relationship. In 2013, Peng filed a lawsuit for divorce, and his illegitimate son was raised by him. Later, the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing granted the divorce of the two, and their legitimate son was raised by Sun. Starting from December 2013, Peng paid a monthly child support fee of 1000 yuan, which was paid before the 25th of each month until Peng Xiaomou turned 18 years old. After the judgment came into effect, the executed person Peng failed to fulfill his obligation to pay maintenance fees within the period specified in the judgment. In June 2015, the Tongzhou Court accepted the application of Sun to enforce the dispute over Peng's maintenance fees. The applicant Sun applied to the court to enforce the maintenance fees from November 2014 to May 2015, totaling 7000 yuan.

（2） Implementation status

After the case was filed by the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, the person subjected to enforcement, Peng, was contacted by phone to inform Sun of his application for child support and to request Peng to pay the child's support. However, the executed person Peng insisted that he was Peng's younger brother, and the executing judge requested him to inform Peng of his obligation to pay support, stating that he could try to contact Peng. Afterwards, the executing judge contacted Peng multiple times, but Peng still claimed that it was not himself, but Peng's younger brother. The executive judge asked why Peng's phone was always on his brother. Peng claimed that it was the business phone of his unit. Peng was not in Beijing and returned to his hometown, so he was responsible for Peng's business. When Peng returned to Beijing was not clear to himself. The executing judge asked Peng if he had any other contact information, but Peng informed him that he did not have any other contact information. Upon investigation, Peng had no deposits in his bank account at that time.

Later, the executing judge notified the applicant to come to the court and informed them of the above situation. The applicant, Mr. Sun, stated that the other party is Mr. Peng, who also has a job, but he is unwilling to pay support. The executing judge immediately contacted Peng, but he still claimed that he was not Peng. After hearing the phone call, Sun immediately indicated that the other party was the executed person Peng, and Peng Xiaomou also indicated that the other party was his father Peng. And pointed out that Peng's younger brother lives in a rural area and cannot speak Mandarin, immediately debunking Peng's lie. The executing judge informed Peng that if he refuses to fulfill the effective judgment and pays alimony, the court will include him/her on the list of dishonest defendants in accordance with the law, and will hold him/her criminally responsible as appropriate. However, the person subjected to execution has not yet voluntarily fulfilled their obligation to pay maintenance fees. The Tongzhou District Court subsequently included Peng, the executed person, in the list of dishonest executed persons in accordance with the law, and froze all of his bank accounts. After being inquired by the executing judge, the executed person opened a credit card at the Credit Card Center of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and the executing judge froze the account. Later, the executed person Peng deposited cash into his credit card, and the executing judge forcibly deducted the case payment in accordance with the law. The case has now been executed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a case where the person subjected to enforcement has the ability to pay child support but refuses to comply with the court's effective judgment and refuses to pay child support for underage children. And the person subjected to execution also resorted to fabricating lies to deceive the judge and refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment, seriously lacking social integrity. Article 21 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children; When parents fail to fulfill their obligations of upbringing, children who are under age or unable to live independently have the right to demand parental support. As Peng Xiaomou's biological father, Peng Xiaomou has an obligation to support him, and this obligation will not be affected by his parents' divorce. After divorce, parents still have the right and obligation to raise and educate their children. According to Article 37 (1) of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, after divorce, if one party raises a child, the other party shall bear some or all of the necessary living and education expenses. In this case, the effective judgment made by the court also stipulates that Peng should pay Peng Xiaomou a maintenance fee of 1000 yuan before the 25th of each month until Peng Xiaomou reaches the age of 18. However, Peng did not actively fulfill the obligations determined by the court's effective judgment. He not only ignored his biological son Peng Xiaomou, but also refused to pay child support, failing to fulfill his father's obligations. After the court filed the case for execution, Peng refused to fulfill his obligation to pay maintenance fees despite having the ability to do so, and even fabricated a lie to evade the court's execution. This behavior not only fails to fulfill the legal obligations of a father, but also deviates from the traditional virtues of respecting the elderly and loving the young of the Chinese nation. The person being executed not only fails to voluntarily fulfill their obligation to pay child support, but also fabricates lies to evade court enforcement, which is a serious lack of social integrity. Without faith, one cannot stand firm. Honesty is the basic principle for handling affairs and is also a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation. Modern society is a society that values integrity, and a person lacking integrity cannot receive respect from others and social recognition. At present, China is vigorously promoting the construction of a social credit system and increasing credit penalties for those subjected to enforcement. In the future, integrity can spread all over the world, but dishonesty will make it difficult to take any action.

10

Yu Mou v. Yu Mouwang in a dispute over alimony

（1） Basic facts of the case

Plaintiff Yu's mother and father divorced through mediation in 2008, and both parties reached a mediation agreement. Yu was raised by his mother, and his father Yu hoped to pay a one-time support fee of 23000 yuan in court. In 2013, Yu attended the second grade of primary school at a bilingual experimental school with an annual tuition fee of 3600 yuan. His mother had no fixed income and her main source of income was working. Later, Yu filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Queshan County, Zhumadian City, Henan Province, requesting his father, Yu, to pay a monthly maintenance fee of 1000 yuan until he reaches the age of 18 on June 30, 2023.

（2） Judgment results

According to Article 37 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, agreements or judgments regarding children's living and education expenses shall not prevent children from making reasonable demands to either parent, if necessary, in excess of the amount originally agreed upon in the agreement or judgment. Article 18 of the "Several Specific Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on the Handling of Child Support Fees in Divorce Cases by the People's Court" stipulates that if the original amount of childcare fees is insufficient to maintain the actual living standards of the local area, children may request an increase in childcare fees. In this case, the plaintiff sued Yu's parents for divorce in 2008. At that time, both parties agreed that Yu's father would pay a one-time child support fee of 23000 yuan in court, with an average of 62.5 yuan per month. In 2012, the per capita living expenses of rural residents in Henan Province were 5032.14 yuan, with an average of 419 yuan per month. Based on the above situation, it is evident that the alimony originally paid by Yu's father is currently insufficient to maintain the actual living standards of the local area. Therefore, the People's Court of Queshan County, Zhumadian City has ruled in support of the plaintiff's request for an increase in alimony.

（3） Typical significance

Many countries and regions around the world follow the principle of "prioritizing the interests of the child" and "the principle of the best interests of the child" when legislating marriage and family laws. Currently, China's Marriage Law and Minors Protection Law also clearly stipulate the principle of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of women and children. The principle of prioritizing the interests of minors and the principle of maximizing the interests of minors should become the basic principles of marriage and family legislation in China, and efforts should be made to prevent and reduce the impact of parental divorce on the living environment of minors, as well as adverse factors such as character development, ideological changes, and learning and growth of minors.

In marriage and family cases, when the people's court makes judgments and mediates on the maintenance fees for underage children, the standard of maintenance fees is generally determined based on the average living standard of the local society at that time. However, with the development of the economy, the improvement of living standards, and the rise of prices, the basis for the original court judgment and mediation of maintenance fees no longer exists or has undergone significant changes. If the maintenance fees are paid according to the conditions and standards at that time, they can no longer meet the basic living requirements of minors and cannot guarantee the normal life and learning of minors. Therefore, laws and judicial interpretations stipulate that underage children have the right to demand an increase in maintenance fees from the obligation holder based on legal circumstances. This case is based on the consideration of maximizing the protection of the interests of underage children. In the case where the original mediation agreement has become legally effective, it is allowed for underage child Yu to file a new lawsuit with the people's court, supporting his claim to increase his father's upbringing expenses in accordance with the law. This judgment is in line with the traditional family virtue education of respecting the elderly and loving the young in our Chinese nation, and is in line with the requirements of socialist core values.

11

Jia v. Liu's Maintenance Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff, Jia, is 76 years old, elderly, weak and sickly, and unable to take care of himself. From 2012 to 2013, Jia spent over 300000 yuan on medical expenses alone for hospitalization due to illness. Jia gave birth to four sons and three daughters throughout his life, with three sons and three daughters being relatively filial. However, Liu, the third son, has not fulfilled any maintenance obligations for many years. During Jia's stay in the hospital, his three sons and daughters actively raised money and shared medical expenses together. And the third son Liu not only ignored his mother's condition, but also refused to share any medical expenses. Although repeatedly mediated by village officials, Liu was unable to hide. Helpless, Jia went to court to file a lawsuit, requesting that his son Liu be ordered to pay alimony, bear the medical expenses already spent, and share the annual medical and nursing expenses in the future.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yucheng County, Shangqiu City, Henan Province held a public hearing to hear this case, And in accordance with Article 21 (3) of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, "When a child fails to fulfill their obligation to support, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their child pay support." Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly Supporters shall fulfill their obligations of providing economic support, daily care, and spiritual comfort to the elderly, and take care of the special needs of the elderly. Supporters refer to the children of the elderly and other persons who are legally obligated to support them. The spouse of the caregiver shall assist the caregiver in fulfilling their maintenance obligations The caregiver shall provide timely treatment and care to the elderly who are sick; for the elderly who are in financial difficulties, medical expenses shall be provided. Article 19, Paragraph 2 stipulates that if the caregiver fails to fulfill their maintenance obligations, the elderly have the right to demand the caregiver to pay maintenance fees and other expenses, and it is decided to support Jia's lawsuit request.

（3） Typical significance

Supporting the elderly is a reward for nurturing, a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, and a legal obligation that children should fulfill towards their parents. Children should not only support their parents, but also respect and care for them, and provide active support in all aspects of family life. It is not allowed to refuse to fulfill the obligation of maintenance by giving up inheritance rights or other reasons. If a child fails to fulfill their maintenance obligations, parents have the right to demand payment of maintenance and medical expenses from their child. When parents are old, weak, or disabled, children should be taken good care of, so that they can receive emotional and spiritual comfort and spend their later years in peace. The defendant Liu in this case, as one of the seven children of the plaintiff, is obligated to provide for their mother, both morally, ethically, and legally. In the case of an elderly, weak, and ill mother, the defendant should jointly bear the obligation of providing for her with other siblings, so that the mother can live a peaceful and happy life in her later years. However, the defendant has the ability to fulfill the obligation of providing for her, but repeatedly evades it, And openly speaking out disregarding the elderly mother, causing a negative impact in the local area and causing public anger. The court, on the premise of confirming the relationship and facts between the two parties, ordered the defendant to fulfill their maintenance obligations in accordance with the law, demonstrating the authority of the rule of law and maintaining moral standards.

12

Dispute over Liability for Damage after Divorce between Zhou and Zhang

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2003, plaintiff Zhou and defendant Zhang registered their marriage and gave birth to one daughter and one son after marriage. In July 2013, Zhang filed a lawsuit for divorce from Zhou, and the court presided over the mediation of the divorce. The main content of the mediation agreement was that both parties voluntarily divorced, and Zhang paid Zhou RMB 38000 in a lump sum, without further investigation by both parties. In May 2013, Zhang gave birth to a daughter with a woman who was not involved in the case. Zhou claimed that he only discovered this matter after his divorce, and now he is suing Zhang for compensation of 30000 yuan for mental damage.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Huaxian County, Henan Province found that according to Article 4 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, "spouses should be loyal to each other and respect each other; family members should respect the elderly, love the children, help each other, and maintain equal, harmonious, and civilized marital and family relationships; Article 46 stipulates that in the event of divorce, the innocent party has the right to request compensation for damages; Article 28 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates "compensation for damages" in Article 46 of the Marriage Law, including material damages and spiritual damages. Defendant Zhang, during his marriage with the plaintiff, engaged in an improper sexual relationship with others and gave birth to a daughter, resulting in divorce. He should bear the corresponding civil compensation responsibility and support the plaintiff's request for damages, that is, order the defendant Zhang to pay the plaintiff Zhou a mental damage compensation of RMB 15000. After the verdict was pronounced, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

Mutual loyalty between husband and wife is not only a traditional virtue, but also a legal obligation. Loyalty to marriage is an intolerable form of dishonesty. It not only damages marital relationships, breaks up families, and harms innocent children, but also undermines social norms and is prohibited by law. Therefore, after divorce, it was discovered that the defendant had engaged in infidelity during their marriage and requested compensation for mental damage. The people's court supported it in accordance with the law to demonstrate the fairness and moral power of the law.

13

Guo sues and Lv divorces

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Guo filed a lawsuit for divorce from the defendant Lv, and requested the return of the dowry of 21200 yuan on the grounds that both parties had not lived together. The defendant Lv admitted that the plaintiff Guo's statement was true and agreed to divorce, but refused to return the dowry on the grounds that he was the wife of the plaintiff Guo Mingmei. After a trial, the Song County People's Court in Henan Province ruled that both parties divorced and the defendant returned the plaintiff's dowry of 14840 yuan.

The plaintiff claimed that he and the defendant Lv met through an introduction in August 2009. As both parties reached the age of marriage, under the guidance of their parents and matchmakers, the two hastily entered into a marriage agreement. After more than a year of making do, the two registered for marriage on March 7, 2011 and held a wedding ceremony on March 12, 2011. During this period, the male partner Guo paid a total of 21200 yuan as a dowry to the female partner Lv. Due to the lack of marital relationship between the two parties and the fact that they have not lived together since we met, we are now suing for divorce and demanding that the defendant return a dowry of 21200 yuan.

The defendant argued that it is a fact that he did not live together with the plaintiff Guo, but he is the wife of the plaintiff Guo Mingmei, and therefore agrees to divorce but does not agree to return the dowry.

After trial, the court found that the plaintiff Guo and the defendant Lv met through an introduction in August 2009 and registered their marriage on March 7, 2011. The marriage ceremony was held on March 12, 2011. During the period from their acquaintance to their marriage, the defendant Lv received a total of 21200 yuan as a dowry from the plaintiff Guo. Furthermore, it has been found that the two parties have not lived together in the past four years of acquaintance.

（2） Judgment results

On June 9, 2014, the Song County People's Court issued a civil judgment (2014) Song Min Wu Chu Zi No. 22, stating that: 1. The plaintiff Guo was granted a divorce from the defendant Lv; 2、 Defendant Lv shall return the plaintiff Guo with a dowry of 14840 yuan within ten days after the effectiveness of this judgment; 3、 Defendant Lv's personal property includes one set of three combination leather sofa (one single sofa, one double sofa, and one long sofa), one 26-inch Hisense brand LCD color TV, one coffee table, four quilts, three blankets, one space blanket, and 16 sheets; 4、 Reject the other litigation requests of the plaintiff Guo. After the judgment was made, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The case of how to return dowry and dowry has certain universal significance in divorce cases of men and women in rural areas of China, especially in rural areas. According to customs, a dowry is a gift or property given by the man's family to the woman before marriage, while a dowry is the total amount of goods or money that the woman brings to her husband's family. In traditional customs, without dowry and dowry, marriage is difficult to establish and legal. Some people analyze economic relationships by saying that dowry and dowry are material exchanges between families in order to establish a long-term marriage relationship, while others say that dowry is a bargaining chip for buying and selling marriage, and makes the sacred marriage a stink. Bribery and dowry can easily lead to distorted views of "money marriage" and corrupt social norms. The skyrocketing dowry and dowry competition are not only a major social issue, but also a legal issue worth studying.

Regarding the issue of returning dowry gifts, The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (2) clearly stipulates: "If a party requests the return of a dowry paid in accordance with customs, if it is found that it belongs to the following circumstances, the people's court shall support: (1) if both parties have not completed the marriage registration procedures; (2) if both parties have completed the marriage registration procedures but have not lived together; (3) Premarital payment causes difficulties for the payer's life

The provisions of item (2) of the preceding paragraph apply to this case, which states that "both parties have completed marriage registration procedures but have not yet lived together". The return of the dowry shall be conditional on the divorce of both parties, and the trial result of this case shall also be in accordance with the above provisions. In addition, the man only received over 14000 yuan back because there is no clear legal provision on how much the dowry should be returned. It is generally determined based on the length of the marriage and the fault of both parties.

14

Han Accuses Zhang of New Abandonment Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Han is a son of Han Wu and Liu, who is mentally disabled and cannot take care of themselves. In October 2009, Han Wu and Liu divorced, and Han was raised by Liu. In August 2013, Liu and Zhang got married, and Han lived together with the two. On February 26, 2014, Zhang Xin privately sent Han to a bus in Beijing. Han wandered in Beijing until his family retrieved him on March 13, 2014. In April 2014, Liu and Zhang divorced. On January 5, 2015, Han filed a lawsuit against Zhang for the crime of abandonment and demanded compensation for economic losses.

（2） Judgment results

During the trial, the People's Court of Huaxian County, Henan Province held that although Han had reached adulthood, he was a mentally disabled person with incomplete civil capacity and needed guardianship. Zhang Mouxin, as his stepfather, lived with him and formed a de facto upbringing relationship, with legal guardianship obligations. Zhang Mouxin did not fulfill his legal guardianship obligations and secretly sent Han away, causing him to be separated from the guardianship and displaced. His behavior has constituted the crime of abandonment. In response to the particularity of the private prosecution case, the court conducted mediation based on the facts of the case. Zhang Mouxin realized his criminal behavior, and ultimately both parties reconciled. The private prosecutor withdrew the private prosecution.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the issue of guardianship for adults with intellectual disabilities and the guardianship relationship between stepparents and children. In this case, although Han has reached adulthood, there is evidence to prove that he is mentally disabled and should be considered as a person with incomplete civil capacity, requiring guardianship and support. Stepparents and children live together, forming a de facto support relationship. Stepparents who do not provide support for their children or inherit children who do not provide support for their parents should bear corresponding legal responsibilities. In this case, Zhang Xin, as the stepfather, evaded his obligation to support his stepson and abandoned him. Although he divorced Liu and his relationship with Han was automatically terminated, this does not negate his specific obligations during the existence of the relationship. His behavior has constituted the crime of abandonment and should be pursued by law. Afterwards, Han was fortunate enough to be retrieved and received good support. During the trial of the case, Zhang Mouxin realized his criminal behavior and voluntarily requested mediation to compensate the victim for their economic losses. Han's legal guardian, considering the special nature of the case, accepted mediation and ultimately concluded the case through mediation. This case has made us realize that in addition to family protection and guardianship, society also provides protection for special personnel.

15

Liu Mousen v. Li Moumei Divorce Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The father of the plaintiff Liu Mousen and the defendant Li Moumei used to work in the same unit, and they had a good relationship. In 1976, the plaintiff and defendant met through introduction and registered their marriage in 1980. They gave birth to a son in December 1981 (now an adult family). During their more than thirty years of living together, the plaintiff and defendant had a quarrel and anger over trivial family matters. Due to poor communication between the two parties and improper handling of the conflict, it affected the plaintiff's feelings towards the defendant, especially the defendant's indifference towards the plaintiff and the plaintiff's parents, which intensified the conflict. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit with the People's Court of Jiefang District, Jiaozuo City, Henan Province on July 2, 2012. The court made a judgment on August 8, 2013, prohibiting the plaintiff The defendant divorced. On June 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a second divorce lawsuit with the court.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of the Liberated Areas of Jiaozuo City believes that it is not easy to get to know and stay together for more than 30 years. Both parties have a good emotional foundation and should cherish the relationship and family they have established over the years. In their future lives, they should overcome and correct their own problems, show mutual understanding and care for each other, do more things that are conducive to marital harmony, and say less things that are not conducive to family harmony. Especially if the defendant can overcome the problems of coldness, poor communication, and impulsive temper, and show more care and understanding towards the plaintiff in daily life. If the plaintiff can remember their years of marital relationship with the defendant, their commitment to the deceased elderly, and their impact on future generations, and work together to overcome the difficulties in the current marriage and family, there is still a possibility of reconciliation between the two parties. Based on this, the court ruled that plaintiff Liu Mousen and defendant Li Moumei were not allowed to divorce. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of elderly divorce. In recent years, the number of elderly divorce cases has gradually increased. If the couple's relationship has indeed broken down and complies with the relevant provisions of Article 32 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, divorce can be ruled out. However, when the relationship between young couples gradually fades, the so-called relationship between elderly couples is more about keeping a promise and evolving family and social responsibilities that conform to public order and good customs. The dissolution of elderly marital relationships cannot be simply equated with ordinary divorce cases. Its impact involves multiple families, including their children and even their grandchildren. The people's court has ruled in accordance with the law and has a positive guiding objection. When hearing elderly divorce cases, it should be recognized that the relationship between elderly couples has been difficult to reconcile for decades. If both parties can remember their years of marital relationship and their responsibilities towards their families, By working together, there is still a possibility for both parties to reunite, so that they can more carefully review divorce cases for elderly couples, in order to better maintain social stability and improve social happiness index.

16

Dispute Case of Pay Xiaomou v. Pay XX's Maintenance Fee

（1） Basic facts of the case

The mother of plaintiff Fu Xiaomou, Han, married the defendant Fu on December 7, 2012 and gave birth to a son named Fu Xiaomou on September 18, 2013. The medical expenses paid by the plaintiff for the hospitalization and childbirth of Han will be paid by the defendant. Since the birth of the plaintiff, his mother, Han, has taken him away from living alone. The defendant, Fu Peimou, has not paid the plaintiff's alimony. The defendant has no fixed income at present.

The plaintiff, Fu Xiaomou, claimed that in August 2012, Han met the defendant, Fu. Han remarried and registered his marriage on November 7, 2012. Since Han became pregnant, he had no job or financial resources, and the defendant, Fu, did not ask or provide any living expenses. After the child was born, Fu Peiqiang was accused of not fulfilling his husband and father's obligations, and Han himself led a difficult life with the child. Therefore, the plaintiff informed the People's Court of Huiji District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province that the defendant was required to pay a monthly maintenance fee of 1500 yuan, starting from September 2013 and paid every six months, and to bear the litigation costs of this case.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff's claim is not a fact. The defendant not only buys clothes for the plaintiff, but also pays monthly living expenses, and has always fulfilled the obligation to support the plaintiff. The plaintiff's mother, Han, secretly took the plaintiff away from home, causing the defendant to not see the plaintiff frequently, which is extremely detrimental to the plaintiff's growth and physical and mental health; The plaintiff's request for the defendant to pay a monthly maintenance fee of 1500 yuan lacks factual and legal basis. The defendant currently has no job, is engaged in household farming, and has no fixed income or source of income. If the plaintiff's mother cannot afford to support the plaintiff, the defendant is willing to bear the obligation to support the plaintiff on their own, and does not require the plaintiff's mother to bear the obligation to support the plaintiff; If the plaintiff does not agree to the defendant directly raising the plaintiff, the defendant is willing to pay the maintenance fee according to the rural living standards in Henan Province.

（2） Judgment results

On March 19, 2014, the People's Court of Huiji District, Zhengzhou City issued a civil judgment (2014) Huishaominchu Zi No. 1; Within ten days after the effective date of this judgment, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff a one-time maintenance fee of RMB 400 per month for the period from October 2013 to the effective date of the judgment; The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's maintenance fee of RMB 400 per month after the effective date of this judgment, at the age of 18; Reject the plaintiff's claim to pay a disproportionate amount.

（3） Typical significance

The demand for alimony from underage children is generally only generated during or after the divorce of both spouses. However, during the marriage period, as the property of both spouses is jointly owned, whether it is possible to demand the party who fails to fulfill the obligation of upbringing to pay alimony is the main point of controversy in this case. Article 3 of the Interpretation (3) of the Marriage Law clearly stipulates that during the existence of the marriage relationship, if both parents or one party refuses to fulfill the obligation of raising their children, or if a minor or child who cannot live independently requests payment of maintenance fees, the people's court shall support it.

Additionally, Article 7 of the "Several Specific Opinions on the Handling of Child Care Issues in Divorce Cases by the People's Court" stipulates: "The amount of child care fees can be determined based on the actual needs of the children, the affordability of both parents, and the actual living standards of the local area For those with a fixed income, the childcare fee can generally be paid at a ratio of 20% to 30% of their total monthly income. For those who bear the childcare fee for two or more children, the ratio can be appropriately increased, but generally it cannot exceed 50% of their total monthly income. This is the guiding opinion of the Supreme Court on cases of divorce or increase in alimony, and this guiding opinion also applies to cases of alimony during the marriage relationship. At the same time, in determining the specific amount of child care expenses, it is also necessary to maintain the normal needs of the child's clothing, food, housing, transportation, education, and medical needs based on their actual living needs. It is also necessary to comprehensively consider factors such as the economic income, expenses, current living burden, possibility of fulfilling obligations, and social status of both parents, and finally make a fair and reasonable judgment.

17

Liu Moumou v. Yuan Yi's Maintenance Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Liu claimed that after their marriage, they had their eldest son Yuan Jia (who had passed away), second son Yuan Yi, and daughter Yuan Bing. Now the plaintiff is suffering from cerebral infarction, coronary heart disease, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, high risk group of hypertension and other diseases, and needs to spend a lot of medical expenses and call for nurse care. In addition to the second son, Yuan Yi, who has done his duty to support the plaintiff, the defendant, Yuan Bing, has ignored the plaintiff and failed to fulfill his daughter's duty to support her. Therefore, he appealed to the court to order according to law: 1. The defendant paid the plaintiff's medical expenses incurred from March 28, 2011 to the effective date of the judgment The nursing fee is about one-third of 18732.7 yuan, which is 6275.45 yuan; 2. The defendant shall bear one-third of the expenses incurred by the plaintiff during the period from December 4, 2011 to February 22, 2012, including medical expenses, hospitalization expenses, and support fees, totaling 13130.22 yuan, which is 4376.74 yuan; 3. The defendant shall bear one-third of the living expenses, medical expenses, nursing expenses, and other expenses related to the plaintiff from the judgment of this case until the plaintiff's death (medical expenses shall be based on official invoices issued by hospitals and pharmacies, and nursing expenses shall be based on the average of the sum of quotations issued by three domestic nursing companies during the same period); 4. The litigation fees in this case shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant was not a true expression of his intention. The defendant had actually fulfilled his obligation to support his mother as a daughter, and the plaintiff's son Yuan Yi has not spent any money on his parents since he worked. This lawsuit was handled by Yuan Yi alone. The plaintiff has medical insurance and could have been treated at the designated unit Zhengzhou Third Hospital under medical insurance, instead of having to pay for treatment at the Rehabilitation Department of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Henan Provincial Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital at their own expense. The self paid expenses amount to thousands of yuan per day, and they have been repeatedly hospitalized and discharged for six months, resulting in unnecessary expenses. The defendant has no ability to support them. The plaintiff has a stable retirement salary, and can pay medical expenses for two properties, whether it is monthly income, or using property to guarantee loans or selling one property. However, the plaintiff gifted one of the properties to the plaintiff's son Yuan Yi. The plaintiff could sell the property to pay for medical expenses, but the defendant did not have the ability to pay for medical and nursing expenses. The defendant, as a daughter, should fulfill her obligation to support her parents. The defendant acknowledges the reasonable, reasonable, and legitimate demands of the plaintiff, but the defendant is unwilling to bear any expenses that do not meet the actual situation.

（2） Judgment results

On June 19, 2012, the People's Court of Huiji District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province issued a civil judgment (2012) Huimin Yichu Zi No. 197, stating that: 1. Defendant Yuan Bing shall pay the plaintiff Liu Yuebing medical expenses of 7392.4 yuan and nursing expenses of 1662 yuan within ten days after this judgment takes effect; 2、 Defendant Yuan Bing shall bear one-third of the medical and nursing expenses incurred from the judgment of this case until the death of plaintiff Liu Yuebing (medical expenses shall be based on the official invoice of the hospital, and nursing expenses shall be calculated based on the average salary of the service industry in Henan Province during the same period). After the verdict was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the civil judgment came into effect on July 25, 2012.

（3） Typical significance

According to the law, children have the obligation to support and support their parents. When parents have financial difficulties, they have the right to demand that their children pay maintenance fees, including basic medical expenses. But this does not mean that when the parents have a good financial level, children do not need to support their parents, and the obligation to support them cannot be subject to any conditions, and children cannot refuse to fulfill their obligation to support them for any reason. In this case, although the plaintiff has pension and medical insurance, the plaintiff suffers from a large number of illnesses, which cannot meet the medical expenses required by the plaintiff. The reason why the daughter is unwilling to support the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has two properties. As the plaintiff gave one of the properties to his son instead of his daughter, the defendant said that if the plaintiff mortgaged or sold one of the properties, the plaintiff's medical expenses would not be a problem, And the defendant doesn't need to pay any more fees. The plaintiff said that the son's family is relatively difficult, and the daughter has objections to the plaintiff's help for the son. She did not want the daughter to pay, but now her condition is severe and the costs are relatively high. She wants the daughter to bear some medical expenses, and the daughter's family is also relatively wealthy and able to bear a portion. Therefore, she only needs to ask the daughter to pay one-third of the medical expenses.

In the modern society where material desires are rampant, people are willing to sacrifice their family relationships for the sake of profit. The love of parents is the most selfless in the world, while the love of children towards parents is the most stingy. They believe that their parents' actions are rightful, and when wealth is unevenly distributed, they will turn against each other and become enemies. Most support cases are caused by parents' unequal distribution of property or children's perception of which child the parents are biased towards. Writing this case is to tell everyone that supporting parents is a legal obligation and does not attach any conditions.

18

Chen Mouqi and defendant Chen Mouming's dispute over alimony

（1） Basic facts of the case

Plaintiff Chen Mouqi (a minor) filed a lawsuit stating that her mother Chen Moufang and defendant Chen Mouming divorced through mediation by the Hengyang County People's Court in 2008. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiff Chen Mouqi would be raised by her mother Chen Moufang, and the defendant Chen Mouming would pay an annual maintenance fee of 3000 yuan from that year until the child was born independently. In 2009, the plaintiff's mother Chen Moufang died of mental illness. Since then, the plaintiff has been living with his grandparents, and the defendant Chen Mouming has not paid any maintenance fees since 2009. The plaintiff is about to face high school education. The original divorce agreement stipulated that the defendant should pay 3000 yuan in maintenance fees annually, which is far from meeting the plaintiff's living and learning needs. Therefore, it is requested to order the defendant Chen Mouming to pay 18000 yuan in arrears to the plaintiff Chen Mouqi in maintenance fees from 2009 to 2014, and to pay 7000 yuan in maintenance fees annually from 2015 to 2019.

（2） Judgment results

After mediation by the People's Court of Hengyang County, Hunan Province, the plaintiff and defendant voluntarily reached the following agreement: the defendant Chen Mouming voluntarily paid the plaintiff Chen Mouqi a total of 28000 yuan per year for daily expenses such as study and living expenses from September 2015 to July 2018 for three years of high school and from July 2018 to September 2019 for four years after Chen Mouqi graduated from high school; The acceptance fee for this case has been waived with the approval of the President of this court.

（3） Typical significance

The purpose of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of minors has always been reflected in the trial process of this case: firstly, judicial assistance. At the filing stage, it is necessary to report to the dean for approval and exemption from litigation fees, and provide judicial assistance to the plaintiff who seeks alimony. The second is to focus on mediation. Focusing on mediation in such cases is more conducive to creating a good growth environment for minors. The third is to maintain family relationships. The plaintiff's mother passed away due to illness, and the plaintiff still lives with her grandparents. The presiding judge always pays attention to maintaining family ties during the process of handling the case, and must not let the lawsuit turn the two sides into enemies or ruin the family ties. I hope that after the plaintiff loses her maternal love, the defendant can give the plaintiff more care and responsibility. The plaintiff's grandparents fulfill their obligation to support their grandchildren within their affordability, and jointly support the plaintiff's underage to thrive. At the same time, it should be explained to the plaintiff that it is their right to seek alimony from the defendant, but the plaintiff should be more considerate of their father's difficulties. The defendant still agreed to increase the payment of alimony even though they still have two children to support, which is already their best effort. They should pay more attention to communication with their father and enhance the relationship between father and daughter in daily life. After the mediation and conclusion of the case, both the plaintiff and the defendant were satisfied, and the plaintiff's village group and school also responded well.

19

Li Moumou and the defendant Zi Mouxiang and other six people's support dispute case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff, Li, is over eighty years old and has given birth to six children including the defendant, Zi, and Xiang. After the plaintiff's spouse passed away, the six children were unable to reach a consensus due to the plaintiff's alimony issues, resulting in the plaintiff being helpless and unable to resolve the conflict through mediation by family relatives and others. The plaintiff had no choice but to file a lawsuit against their six children, demanding that they bear the obligation of maintenance.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Hengyang County, Hunan Province has ruled that the defendant Zi and six others shall each pay the plaintiff Li a monthly maintenance fee of 200 yuan (payment method: pay the monthly maintenance fee before the 5th of each month); The medical expenses of plaintiff Li shall be borne equally by the six defendants based on their actual expenses.

（3） Typical significance

As the old saying goes, 'raising children to prevent aging', the plaintiff managed to raise six children into adulthood, but unexpectedly fell into such a situation in his later years, which is truly chilling. According to Chinese law, children have the obligation to support and support their parents. As the children of the plaintiff, the six defendants should fulfill their maintenance obligations and take care of the elderly in their later years. The plaintiff is elderly and sickly, losing the ability to work, and the current economic situation cannot sustain their basic living needs. Their children should bear corresponding maintenance obligations.

20

Dispute over the upbringing of children between Chen and Liang

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff, Chen, and the defendant, Liang, established a romantic relationship through someone else's introduction in 2009. Without obtaining marriage registration, they lived together under the name of husband and wife and gave birth to a boy, Chen, on November 6, 2010. Afterwards, the plaintiff Chen worked outside for years, and from the birth of the child until March 2014, the child lived together with the parents of the defendant Liang and the plaintiff Chen. In March 2014, the plaintiff and defendant voluntarily terminated their cohabitation relationship due to emotional discord. Afterwards, the plaintiff Chen continued to work in another city, while the defendant Liang worked in the urban area of Leiyang. During this period, the child lived with the plaintiff Chen's parents, and the defendant Liang visited the child. The child's tuition fees were jointly borne by the plaintiff Chen's parents and the defendant Liang. Since March 2015, the child has been living with the defendant Liang.

（2） Judgment results

The behavior of the plaintiff and defendant living together in the name of husband and wife without going through marriage registration procedures is considered cohabitation and is not protected by law. According to relevant laws and regulations, children born out of wedlock have the same rights as children born in wedlock. The biological father or mother who does not directly raise children born out of wedlock shall bear the child's living and educational expenses until the child can live independently. In this case, Chen Moule was an illegitimate child of the plaintiff and defendant. During the cohabitation relationship, the child lived with the plaintiff's parents and the defendant. After the plaintiff and defendant terminated the cohabitation relationship, although the child lived with the plaintiff's parents for a period of time, the plaintiff had been working outside during that period, and the defendant worked in the urban area of Leiyang, and also fulfilled the obligation to raise the child. Taking into account the actual situation of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the child lives with the defendant, and the plaintiff pays a monthly maintenance fee of 600 yuan, which can better reconcile the family relationship between parents and children and is also conducive to the healthy growth of the child. In summary, the People's Court of Leiyang City, Hunan Province ruled in accordance with the law that the plaintiff Chen and the defendant Liang had an illegitimate child, Chen Le (male, born on November 6, 2010), living with the defendant Liang. The plaintiff Chen paid a monthly support fee of 600 yuan until the child could live independently. After the child reached adulthood, it was up to him to choose to accompany his father and mother.

（3） Typical significance

Parents have the right and obligation to raise their children. Regarding the issue of raising children, the basic principles of promoting their physical and mental health and safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests should be adhered to. Only on this premise, can specific situations such as the ability and conditions of both parents to raise children be properly resolved.

21

Dispute over Visitation Rights between He and Jiang

（1） Basic facts of the case

On August 24, 2010, the plaintiff He and the defendant Jiang were divorced by a court ruling, and the legitimate child He Moujia was raised by the defendant Jiang. The plaintiff He paid a monthly child support fee of 450 yuan until the child turned eighteen. After the judgment came into effect, the plaintiff paid monthly child support in cash. Later, due to the plaintiff's failure to pay child support fees, the defendant applied to the court for compulsory enforcement. The Executive Bureau of Huarong County People's Court made a ruling requiring the plaintiff to make monthly payments to the defendant's account to pay child support fees. From November 2010 to the time of the lawsuit, a total of 47 bank deposit certificates were issued. On October 2, 2013, the defendant provided the plaintiff with the medical invoice for the hospitalization of the child, requesting payment of the corresponding fees but not paying them. Since then, the defendant has not allowed the plaintiff to visit the child. In addition, the plaintiff paid 900 yuan and 310 yuan for child medical expenses on February 29, 2012 and March 30, 2013, respectively. It was also found that He Moujia was born on March 9, 2010 and is currently studying at school.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huarong County, Hunan Province has ruled in accordance with the law that the plaintiff He Moumou visits his legitimate son He Moujia once on the last weekend of each month until he reaches adulthood, and the defendant Jiang Moumou should provide assistance.

（3） Typical significance

After divorce, the party who does not directly support their children has the right to visit their children, and the other party should provide assistance and cooperation. In this case, the defendant refused to visit the child during the hospitalization period due to the plaintiff's father visiting the child at the hospital without buying anything, and the plaintiff did not immediately pay the child's medical expenses, which is not conducive to the child's physical and mental health and growth. Although the plaintiff and defendant have divorced, they cannot separate the blood relationship and emotional bond between the parents and their children. The father plays an irreplaceable and important role in the growth of the son. The defendant cannot affect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff and the healthy growth of the child due to conflicts between the plaintiff and defendant's families. The court hopes that both parties will adhere to the principle of mutual understanding and accommodation, which is conducive to the physical and mental health and growth of children, and exercise more restraint and negotiation in future visits to children. The court considers making the above judgment based on the purpose of not affecting the normal life and learning of the child, but also increasing communication between the son and the father, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff and promoting the physical and mental health and growth of the child.

22

Weng Moumou's intentional injury case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The defendant Weng and the victim Hu have a marital relationship, but Hu and Yang have maintained an improper relationship for a long time and have committed domestic violence against Weng. On the evening of the crime, Hu and Yang returned home and had an argument with Weng. Hu took out a mop and chased after Weng, then switched to a hanger to continue the beating. Weng picked up a fruit knife on the glass wine cabinet to defend himself. In the confrontation between the two sides, the fruit knife held by Weng in his right hand stabbed Hu's left chest, causing him to die after being rescued by the hospital.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Pingjiang County, Hunan Province held in the first instance that the defendant Weng intentionally injured another person's body, causing death, and his behavior constituted the crime of intentional injury. Weng used a knife to defend himself when he suffered illegal infringement and caused death by injuring others during the process, which is considered excessive defense. After the incident, Weng invited someone to report to the police and actively treated the victim, and was able to truthfully confess his criminal facts, which constitutes voluntary surrender. This case is caused by marital and family issues. The defendant obtained the understanding of the victim's family after the incident, and the victim had significant faults in the cause of this case. Weng can be given a lighter punishment at his discretion. According to the law, the defendant Weng was sentenced to three years in prison and five years in probation.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving domestic violence leading to criminal offenses. This type of case generally presents characteristics such as the victim having significant faults, the defendant's behavior having less harm to society, and the likelihood of committing a repeat offense. The implementation of a criminal policy of combining leniency and severity on the defendant in this case not only plays a role in preventing crime through punishment, but also helps to resolve social conflicts and maximize the organic unity of the legal and social effects of the case judgment.

23

Li and Yang Disputes over Improper Enrichment

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Li and her husband Song registered their marriage on April 10, 1998, and jointly founded and operated a company after their marriage. In May 2011, Song developed a romantic relationship with defendant Yang through a friend's introduction, while plaintiff Li remained in the dark. On November 8, 2011, in order to fulfill his promise to Yang, Song transferred 660000 yuan to Yang's account through China Merchants Bank. After Li, the plaintiff, found out, he repeatedly sought help from Yang but failed, so he sued the court. The plaintiff Li filed a lawsuit claiming that her husband Song paid 660000 yuan to the defendant Yang, who had an improper relationship with her on his own, which not only violated relevant legal provisions, but also violated public order, good customs, and social morality. The defendant Yang should return the property he obtained and bear the litigation costs of this case. In the lawsuit, the defendant Yang was lawfully summoned but did not appear in court to participate in the lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Nanxian County, Hunan Province held that for important decisions made by the husband or wife regarding the joint property of the couple not due to daily life needs, both parties should negotiate equally and reach a consensus. Song paid 660000 yuan in cash to his lover behind his wife's back, which violated public order, good customs, and social morality, and violated the provisions of the Marriage Law. His behavior should be deemed invalid. The defendant Yang obtained 660000 yuan without legal basis and obtained improper benefits, causing losses to the plaintiff. It is considered improper profits and should be returned in accordance with the law. Therefore, the court ruled in accordance with the law that the defendant Yang would return 660000 yuan in cash to the plaintiff Li.

（3） Typical significance

This case is an unjust enrichment dispute caused by an extramarital affair. Due to similar situations in real life, the handling of this case has attracted widespread attention. The law clearly stipulates that husband or wife have equal rights in handling the joint property of husband and wife. Any party has the right to decide on the disposal of joint property between husband and wife due to daily life needs. If a husband or wife makes important decisions regarding the joint property of the couple not due to daily life needs, both parties should negotiate equally and reach a consensus. If the other party has reason to believe that it is a joint expression of intent between the husband and wife, the other party shall not use disagreement or lack of knowledge as a reason to confront a bona fide third party. In this case, Yang did not pay the corresponding consideration for the property donated by Song, so it does not belong to paid acquisition and cannot apply the system of good faith acquisition. On the other hand, due to the huge amount of 660000 yuan and not being necessary for daily life, Song has no right to handle it alone. His act of giving it to Yang without compensation damages Li's legitimate rights and interests, which violates the principle of fairness. And the relationship between the plaintiff's husband and lover is contrary to the socialist morality advocated in our country, violates public order and good customs, and is not protected by law. Therefore, Song's gift behavior should be deemed invalid, and Li, as the property owner and interested party, has the right to demand Yang's full return.

24

The divorce dispute between Peng and Li

（1） Basic facts of the case

Peng, born in November 1939, and Li, born in May 1957, are both remarried families, each with children. In November 2008, I met through a matchmaker's introduction, and on January 15, 2009, I registered for marriage at the Civil Affairs Bureau of Shuangqing District, Shaoyang City. However, I did not have any children after marriage. Due to the lack of harmony between the defendant and the plaintiff's family members, the couple often engage in arguments. On the second day of January 2015, after a conflict between the two parties, they separated. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the people's court on the grounds that the marital relationship had completely broken down, requesting the court to rule for divorce.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Shuangqing District, Shaoyang City has lawfully granted the divorce of plaintiff Peng and defendant Li.

（3） Typical significance

The plaintiff and defendant are from a remarried family, and their emotional foundation is weak. They have not established a true marital relationship after marriage. Both parties have separated due to emotional discord, indicating that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has indeed broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation. In this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant have their own families, and neither party has been well integrated into their families, resulting in frequent conflicts. Of course, the divorce between both parties is related to insufficient communication with their respective children. The judge reminded the elderly to communicate more with their children when seeking a spouse. As children, we should also stand from the perspective of the elderly and care more about our parents, not only materially but also spiritually, so that they can have a happy old age.

25

Dispute case of Yang v. Wang's change of custody rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

A girl named Tingting, born in February 2008, lived with her father Wang and grandparents after her mother Yang separated from her father Wang. Later, Wang and Wu registered their marriage and gave birth to a son after marriage. Afterwards, Wang and Tingting's grandparents worked outside for many years, leaving only Wu to take care of their two young children's daily lives. Due to dissatisfaction with Wang's disregard for himself and his children, Wu harbored resentment towards Tingting, who didn't do her homework seriously and ate slowly. He vented his anger on Tingting and repeatedly assaulted her. It wasn't until recently that Tingting's injuries were discovered by the teacher and attracted social attention. Tingting's biological mother, Yang Moumou, couldn't bear her daughter to be injured. With the help of the legal aid center, she filed a lawsuit to the court requesting a change in custody rights.

（2） Judgment results

After the Baoying Court accepted this case, with the participation and cooperation of the County Women's Federation and the Village Women's Federation, a thorough investigation was conducted into the family situation of both parties. It was found that the plaintiff Yang gave birth to two children after marriage, with the eldest child being only three years old and currently unemployed. She relies solely on her husband's income to support her family's living expenses. Although she insists on demanding Tingting's custody, she is actually unable to meet her expectations. Defendant Wang, while blaming Wu for beating Tingting, also deeply reflected on his mistakes in this incident, but hoped that Tingting would still live with him. During the mediation process, Wang and Wu jointly promised to treat their daughter well and ensure her healthy growth. Tingting herself is also willing to continue living with Wang and his wife. After a comprehensive analysis of both parties' parenting abilities and economic conditions, and seeking the opinions of both parties and their relatives, and receiving sincere repentance and written commitment from Wu, it was finally determined that Tingting still lives with Wang.

（3） Typical significance

This case originated from Wu's domestic violence against Tingting. During the handling of the case, Yang also filed a criminal private prosecution with Baoying Court, requesting Wu to be held criminally responsible for the crime of abuse. In order to avoid exacerbating the opposing emotions between the two parties, the presiding judge communicated with both parties multiple times, ultimately leading to Yang withdrawing his private prosecution and no longer pursuing Wu's criminal responsibility. They worked together to make Tingting live in a harmonious environment.

26

Wang Li v. Zhang Wei's Cohabitation and Property Analysis Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Wang Li and the defendant Zhang Wei have been living together as husband and wife since 2001, without any children. On January 24, 2002, the defendant Zhang Wei purchased one residential building, No. 1, 6th floor, Unit 3, Building 10, Anping Street, Gongchangling District, for a price of 30000 yuan in his personal name. The plaintiff and defendant borrowed 13000.00 yuan from a certain location in Geng to purchase the house, and the above-mentioned loan has been fully repaid by the plaintiff and defendant. According to another investigation, the plaintiff and defendant borrowed 2000.00 yuan from Geng and 8000.00 yuan from Zhao for cohabitation.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Gongchangling District, Liaoyang City, Liaoning Province has held that cohabitation refers to a stable long-term living relationship between a man and a woman without marriage registration. The plaintiff and defendant live together in the name of husband and wife without obtaining marriage registration. During the cohabitation period, the income and property jointly obtained by both parties shall be treated as general shared property; When the cohabitation relationship is terminated, the creditor's rights and debts formed during the cohabitation period for joint production and living can be treated as joint creditor's rights and debts.

According to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (2), Article 1, Paragraph 2, and the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on the Trial of Living Together in the Name of a Husband and Wife without Marriage Registration, the judgment is as follows:

1、 The property located at Room 1, 6th Floor, Unit 3, Building 10, a residential community in Anping Street, Gongchangling District belongs to the defendant Zhang Wei. The defendant Zhang Wei shall pay the plaintiff Wang Li a discounted amount of 51069.20 yuan for her share of the property within 15 days after this judgment takes effect;

2、 The debt incurred by the plaintiff and defendant during their cohabitation period is 10000.00 yuan (Zhao 8000.00 yuan, Geng 2000.00 yuan), and the plaintiff and defendant each bear 5000.00 yuan. Both parties are jointly and severally liable for repayment;

3、 Reject the plaintiff's other claims.

The case acceptance fee is 300.00 yuan and the evaluation fee is 6000.00 yuan, which will be borne by the plaintiff and defendant respectively, totaling 3150.00 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, cases involving the dissolution of cohabitation and the division of property have become increasingly complex. In many cases, cohabitation and marriage are very similar, with almost no difference except for two pieces of paper (marriage certificate). However, in the case of suing for cohabitation and property separation, there is a significant difference between the handling of cohabitation and marital relationships. During the period of marriage, the property obtained by one or both parties, except for the property listed in Article 18 of the Marriage Law, shall be jointly owned by the husband and wife, and the husband or wife shall have equal rights to dispose of the jointly owned property. The separation of property in a cohabitation relationship is determined through property acquisition, and joint property cannot be disposed of without the consent of the co owners. Their behavior patterns and consequence patterns are different. Both cohabitation and family relationships are small cells of the entire society, and managing cohabitation relationships well is of great significance for the construction of a harmonious society.

27

The Case of Wang Peng and Xu Lili Returning the Betrothal Gift

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Wang Peng and the defendant Xu Lili were introduced to be engaged on November 19, 2010 in the lunar calendar. At the time of their engagement, the defendant demanded a dowry of 100000 yuan from the plaintiff. On the day of engagement, the defendant received a dowry of 10000 yuan, a small gift of 2000.00 yuan, and a cigarette packaging fee of 2000.00 yuan. On March 16, 2011, the plaintiff and defendant completed the marriage registration procedures, and lived in the west house of the plaintiff's father's house after their wedding on February 16 of the same lunar calendar. About 10 days before the marriage, the defendant received a dowry of 90000 yuan. Before the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff's father purchased another Haojue Silver Leopard brand two wheeled motorcycle (now kept by the defendant's parents, with a value of 2000.00 yuan), and other household appliances and furniture were purchased by the plaintiff's parents (now kept by the plaintiff's family). The initial marital relationship between the plaintiff and defendant after their marriage is still acceptable. Afterwards, due to trivial matters, the plaintiff and defendant had a quarrel and a fight. In October 2012, the plaintiff and defendant purchased a Wuling Rongguang brand mini van (currently under the plaintiff's custody) with the dowry money received by the defendant. After a quarrel between the two parties in October 2013, the defendant returned to their mother's house and has been separated from the plaintiff ever since. The plaintiff has borrowed 110000 yuan from others for marriage and has not yet repaid it.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Xifeng County, Liaoning Province found that the plaintiff Wang Peng and the defendant Xu Lili had been introduced to each other for only two months before registering their marriage. Due to insufficient mutual understanding between the two parties before marriage and the inability to establish a sincere marital relationship in daily life after marriage, they had a quarrel and fight over trivial matters during their shared life. They have separated since October 2013. After separation, the relatives of the plaintiff and defendant, as well as the court, conducted mediation and reconciliation work, and there was no possibility of reconciliation. Their marital relationship had indeed broken down. The plaintiff's divorce request should be supported. The defendant's request for dowry from the plaintiff during the engagement of the plaintiff and defendant has violated the provisions of China's Marriage Law on obtaining property through marriage, and has caused difficulties in the plaintiff's family life. Therefore, the 100000 yuan dowry requested by the defendant should be refunded as appropriate. However, considering the fact that the plaintiff and defendant have already purchased a van with the dowry money and are using and managing it by the plaintiff, it can be ruled that the van belongs to the plaintiff. The motorcycle purchased by the plaintiff's father before the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant should be recognized as the plaintiff's premarital property, and the defendant should also return it to the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment is as follows: divorce is granted to the plaintiff Wang Peng and the defendant Xu Lili; One Wuling Rongguang brand mini van purchased by the plaintiff and defendant with the dowry money belongs to the plaintiff; The defendant shall return one Haojue Silver Leopard brand two wheeled motorcycle (present value 2000.00 yuan) to the plaintiff within 10 days after the judgment takes effect.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, cases of demanding a dowry before marriage during divorce have been frequently reported, and there have even been tragedies of intentional homicide due to unsuccessful demands. Dealing with such cases well is of great significance for creating good interpersonal relationships and maintaining harmonious and stable social order. There are clear provisions on the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court.

Article 10 of the Interpretation 2 of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "If a party requests the return of a dowry paid in accordance with customs, if it is found that: (1) both parties have not completed the marriage registration procedures; (2) both parties have completed the marriage registration procedures but have not lived together; (3) Premarital payment that causes difficulties for the payer's life. The application of the provisions of items (2) and (3) of the preceding paragraph shall be conditional on the divorce of both parties So how to understand "life difficulties"? Article 27 of the Interpretation (2) provides the following interpretation of the meaning of "living difficulties": "The term" living difficulties "referred to in Article 42 of the Marriage Law refers to the inability to maintain a basic living standard in the local area by relying on personal property and property obtained at the time of divorce

28

Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping Divorce Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 6, 2014, Sun Fengjie filed a lawsuit with the Liaohe People's Court in Liaoning Province, claiming that Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping met through an introduction in 1992, registered for marriage on August 15, 1993, and gave birth to their daughter Sun Ningnan in June 1994. After marriage, due to personality differences between the two parties, they often argue and even engage in physical activity together. Since March 2007, both parties have been living apart. On the eve of their daughter's college entrance examination in 2011, both parties signed a divorce agreement and supplementary terms to the divorce agreement, but due to various reasons, they did not register for divorce. Afterwards, Wang Yuping delayed handling the divorce procedures, but unfortunately, Sun Fengjie filed a lawsuit in court twice in October 2012 and July 2013 to request divorce. Later, the lawsuit was withdrawn due to the need to collect evidence. Now Sun Fengjie is suing for divorce from Wang Yuping for the third time. Wang Yuping defended that their relationship had not completely broken down and did not agree to divorce. The fact confirmed by the court is that Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping met through an introduction and registered their marriage on August 15, 1993. After marriage, they had a good relationship and gave birth to their daughter Sun Ningnan in June 1994. Due to significant personality differences between the two parties, conflicts arose in their shared lives, and they have been separated for four years due to emotional discord. Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping reached a "Supplementary Provisions to the Divorce Agreement" on May 29, 2011 regarding the issue of divorce. Sun Fengjie filed for divorce in court twice in October 2012 and July 2013, but later withdrew the lawsuit on the grounds of insufficient evidence of marital breakdown. On May 6, 2014, Sun Fengjie filed a third lawsuit demanding a divorce from Wang Yuping.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Liaohe, Liaoning Province held that although Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping had been married for many years, due to significant differences in personality, conflicts arose during their shared life, resulting in the two parties living apart for four years due to emotional discord. It can be determined that the couple's relationship has indeed broken down. Therefore, Sun Fengjie's request for divorce from Wang Yuping meets the legal requirements and is supported. After the verdict was pronounced, Wang Yuping appealed against the first instance judgment. The Liaohe Intermediate People's Court of Liaoning Province, after legal trial, found that Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping registered and gave birth to children in accordance with the law, but due to significant differences in personality, conflicts gradually arose during their shared life. Since 2012, Sun Fengjie has filed multiple lawsuits for divorce. Although the lawsuit was withdrawn, the marital relationship has not improved as a result. Through Sun Fengjie's behavior of leaving notes and sending text messages to Wang Yuping, it can be seen that Sun Fengjie and Wang Yuping have rarely had face-to-face contact in their daily lives. Based on the divorce agreement between the two parties and the testimony of Sun Ningnan, it can be determined that they have been separated due to emotional discord for four years. During the second instance, our court attempted to reconcile the two parties, but Sun Fengjie insisted on divorce. It can be seen that the couple's relationship has indeed broken down, so the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

How to determine whether the relationship has indeed broken down in the divorce lawsuit has become the key to the trial of this case. Article 32 (2) of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Marriage Law") states that "the relationship has indeed broken down" is the legal reason for divorce, and the third paragraph of this article lists five situations in which divorce should be granted. It can be seen that the Marriage Law adopts a legislative model that combines generalization and enumeration, making the legal grounds for divorce operable. In this case, from the perspective of their marital relationship, there is a significant difference in personality between the two parties, and there are many conflicts during their shared life. Therefore, their emotional life has been greatly affected and has been deteriorating year by year. From the current situation of the marital relationship, both parties have been separated for four years due to emotional discord, and there has been little contact during this period. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 (3) of the Marriage Law, which states that "two parties separated for two years due to emotional discord" among the five situations that should be allowed for divorce. From Sun Fengjie's divorce determination, it can be seen that this is the third time Sun Fengjie has filed a divorce lawsuit with the court, and attempts to reconcile in the first and second trials have failed, indicating his divorce determination. Based on the above factors, it can be determined that Sun Fengjie's relationship with Wang Yuping has indeed broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation, and a divorce should be granted.

29

Han Li v. Yang Yanming's Right to Visit Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Han Li and Yang Yanming divorced on December 1, 2014, and the legitimate girl Yang Yuhan (born on December 1, 2011) was raised by Yang Yanming. Han Li paid a monthly maintenance fee of 1000 yuan. Han Li filed a lawsuit on March 11, 2015, citing Yang Yanming's refusal to visit the child.

（2） Judgment results

The original trial court ruled that Han Li visited his legitimate daughter Yang Yuhan once a week. The time for each visit is limited to Friday afternoon at 17:00 when Han Li personally picks up the child from Yang Yanming. Han Li will send the child back before 17:00 the next day, and Yang Yanming should provide assistance. Yang Yanming sued for a change in sentence of visiting twice a month and not staying overnight. After trial, the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court found that Han Li, as the mother of Yang Yuhan, has the right to visit children, and Yang Yanming has the obligation to assist. The confirmed time for Han Li to visit children in the original trial is in accordance with legal regulations and is maintained. Regarding Yang Yanming's appeal reasons such as being taken away due to inappropriate ethnic beliefs, Han Li's inability to ensure the safety of the child, and Han Li's inability to guarantee time with the child due to the nature of his work, due to the lack of evidence to prove it and the lack of factual and legal basis, it is not supported. Yang Yanming raised the appeal reason that the child must be paid on time in order to visit the child. As the custody fee has already been determined by the effective judgment and is not the same legal relationship as this case, this case will not be processed. Yang Yanming's appeal reason cannot be supported. The judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

Article 38 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that after divorce, parents who do not directly support their children have the right to visit their children, and the other party has the obligation to assist. The method and time for exercising the right to visit shall be agreed upon by the parties; When the agreement cannot be reached, the people's court shall make a judgment. If parents visit their children and it is not conducive to their physical and mental health, the right to visit shall be suspended by the people's court in accordance with the law; After the cause of suspension disappears, the right to visit should be restored. The party who does not directly raise their children after divorce has the legal right to visit their children, and the other party should not interfere or obstruct them on the grounds of paying maintenance fees in advance. After divorce, both parties should, in accordance with the principle of benefiting the physical and mental health of their children, negotiate and resolve matters such as children's visits and education, in order to create a harmonious growth environment for the children.

30

Xing Guizhi v. Yin Zhigang's Return of Possession Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Xing Guizhi and the outsider Yin Shutian have a marital relationship. After marriage, the outsider Yin Shutian purchased a three bedroom brick and stone house with a building area of 55 square meters located in Xujiatun Village, Wen'an Village, Langtou Town, Zhenxing District, Dandong City on December 7, 1980 (property certificate number: Zhennongfang Zi No. 159). On May 9, 1985, Yin Shutian died. The house in question is temporarily occupied by Yin Huijin, the son of Xing Guizhi and Yin Shutian. On January 23, 2012, Yin Huijin passed away. In the same year, Yin Zhigang, the son of Yin Huijin, moved to the house in question without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff informed the court and requested the defendant to vacate the property involved in the case.

（2） Judgment results

After the trial, the court held that the property in question was purchased by the plaintiff Xing Guizhi and the outsider Yin Shutian after marriage, and should be considered as the joint property of the couple. After the death of the outsider Yin Shutian, the plaintiff, as a co-owner, enjoyed the right to occupy and use the house. The current defendant Yin Zhigang, without the consent of the plaintiff, occupied and used the house, infringing on the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests, and should bear corresponding civil liability. Therefore, this court supports the plaintiff's claim that the defendant immediately pour out and return the property involved. Regarding the defendant's argument that the property involved in the case has been sold by the outsider Yin Shutian to his father Yin Huijin, as the property involved is jointly owned by the plaintiff and the outsider Yin Shutian's husband and wife, Yin Shutian's unilateral disposal of the property without the plaintiff's consent and subsequent recognition should be invalid, and the date of the property purchase and sale agreement provided by the defendant is clearly contradictory to the date of the outsider Yin Shutian's death, which is inconsistent with the facts, Therefore, this court will not adopt this opinion. Regarding the defendant's argument on his right to inherit the property in question, although the share of property rights belonging to Yin Shutian was inherited after the death of the outsider Yin Shutian, the defendant Yin Zhigang only had the right to inherit and did not actually acquire the right to occupy and use the property in question. Therefore, this court will not adopt this argument. The defendant may claim the right to inherit the property in question in a separate case, and this case will not be dealt with together. According to Article 64 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 5 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 245 (1) of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China, Judgment: The defendant Yin Zhigang immediately poured out a brick and stone structure three bedroom house located in Xujiatun Village, Wen'an Village, Langtou Town, Zhendong District, Dandong City, with a building area of 55 square meters (property certificate number: Zhennongfang Zi No. 159), and returned it to the plaintiff Xing Guizhi.

（3） Typical significance

With the development of China's socialist economy, the protection of citizens by the Property Law is particularly significant. Although this case is a dispute over the return of property in possession, the main issue involved is the composition of the right to request the return of property in possession. The right to reply to a request for possession refers to the right of the possessor to request the usurper and its successors to reply to their possession and return the possession if the possession has been encroached upon. There are four constituent elements: 1. Possession is encroached upon. Seizure refers to the deprivation of possession by private force prohibited by law, contrary to the will of the possessor; 2. The claimant must be the possessor whose possession has been deprived. 3. The requested person is the usurper and its successors in possession. Two points to note: the aggressor must still be the person who currently possesses it. Otherwise, if the aggressor is no longer the person in current possession, there is no right to reply to the request for possession against the aggressor. 4. Must be exercised within one year from the date of seizure (if not exercised after the expiration of one year, the right to reply to possession shall be extinguished). The right to reply to a request for possession allows possession to be independently protected from its own right, with three legal purposes: 1. to protect the property rights behind possession (based on possession) by protecting possession; 2. By protecting possession, protecting the creditor's rights behind possession (as the creditor cannot enjoy the right to claim property rights); 3. Maintain social peace and the order of property ownership, and prohibit anyone from arbitrarily depriving others of their possession through private forces prohibited by law. The legitimate civil rights and interests of citizens are protected by law, and no organization or individual may infringe upon them. If the immovable property in possession is encroached upon, the possessor has the right to request the return of the original property.

31

Case of Zhang v. Cheng over Body Rights Dispute

（1） Basic facts of the case

Zhang (female) and Cheng (male) registered for marriage in 2005. On May 26, 2008, Cheng resorted to domestic violence against Zhang due to family matters, resulting in multiple injuries to Zhang's body. After diagnosis by Tuoketuo County Hospital and Inner Mongolia Medical College Affiliated Hospital, they were diagnosed with comprehensive symptoms such as head and face closed injury, nasal bone fracture, nasal root bone loss, left eye injury, and bilateral knee joint injuries.

Therefore, on August 5, 2008, Zhang filed a criminal private prosecution with the People's Court of Tokto County on the grounds that Cheng had committed the crime of intentional injury, and also submitted a request for criminal incidental civil litigation. On November 6, 2008, the court issued the (2008) Tuo Xing Chu Zi No. 59 Criminal Adjunctive Civil Judgment, ruling that: 1. Cheng had committed the crime of intentional injury and was exempt from criminal punishment; 2、 Cheng compensated Zhang with 2541.1 yuan in medical expenses, 300 yuan in forensic examination fees, 300 yuan in appraisal fees, 200 yuan in transportation fees, totaling 3341.10 yuan. On July 22, 2010, Zhang was identified as a Grade 10 disability due to a nasal bone fracture by the Judicial Appraisal Institute of the First Hospital of Hohhot City. Cheng filed a divorce lawsuit on June 11, 2008, and the Intermediate People's Court of Hohhot City issued a civil judgment (2011) Hmin Er Zhong Zi No. 571, ruling that both parties were divorced. On August 12, 2010, Zhang filed a civil lawsuit with the People's Court of Tokto County, demanding compensation from Cheng for his medical and nursing expenses totaling over 60000 yuan. After trial, the People's Court of Tokto County held that citizens' right to life and health is protected by law. According to Article 30 (2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (1), "if the innocent party who meets the provisions of Article 46 of the Marriage Law serves as the defendant in a divorce lawsuit, if the defendant disagrees with the divorce and does not file a claim for damages based on this provision, they may file a separate lawsuit within one year after the divorce. Although Zhang and Cheng were sentenced to divorce on August 11, 2011, Cheng filed a divorce lawsuit on June 11, 2008. On August 5, 2008, Zhang filed a criminal private prosecution and received corresponding civil compensation for Cheng's domestic violence. Therefore, as the defendant of the innocent party in the divorce case with Cheng, Zhang filed a claim for damages, so Zhang's actions are no longer bound by the aforementioned laws. According to Article 136 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the statute of limitations for claiming compensation for bodily injury is one year, and the statute of limitations shall be calculated from the time when one knows or should have known that their rights have been infringed. In this case, Zhang filed a criminal private prosecution on August 5, 2008, which should be deemed as having already known that his legitimate rights had been infringed upon and he sued again after two years. Obviously, it exceeded the statute of limitations and did not support Zhang's lawsuit. The judgment rebutted the plaintiff Zhang's lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

Zhang refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Hohhot Intermediate People's Court, requesting the second instance court to change the judgment in accordance with the law and support his lawsuit request. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Hohhot City held that, in accordance with Article 136 of the General Principles of the Law of the People's Republic of China, "the statute of limitations for the following actions shall be one year: (1) for bodily injury;" According to Article 137, "the statute of limitations for actions shall be calculated from the time when one knows or should have known that their rights have been infringed upon, And Article 168 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (Trial) states, "During the statute of limitations for personal injury compensation, if the injury is obvious, it shall be counted from the date of injury; if the injury was not discovered at the time, and it can be confirmed through inspection that it was caused by the injury, it shall be counted from the date of diagnosis of the injury." In this case, Cheng's personal injury to Zhang occurred on May 26, 2008, On July 29, 2010, Zhang was identified by the Judicial Appraisal Institute of the First Hospital of Hohhot as having a nasal bone fracture that constitutes a tenth degree disability. That is to say, on July 29, 2010, the scope and amount of damage to Zhang's rights were confirmed, and the statute of limitations for litigation began on July 29, 2010. Therefore, Zhang filed a lawsuit on August 12, 2010 requesting that Cheng bear the liability for personal injury compensation within the statute of limitations. Zhang suffered personal injury due to Cheng's domestic violence and was identified by the appraisal department as a level 10 disability. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, if the victim suffers personal injury, the compensation obligor shall bear the nursing expenses, transportation expenses, hospitalization food subsidies, necessary nutrition expenses, disability compensation, etc. incurred by the victim due to personal injury Compensation shall be provided for the living expenses, appraisal fees, and mental damage compensation of the dependent. In summary, the first instance judgment determined the facts clearly, but the application of the law was incorrect, and the judgment was revised in accordance with the law. Firstly, the Civil Judgment No. 143 of the People's Court of Tokto County (2012) was revoked; 2、 Cheng compensated Zhang with various expenses of 48664.31 yuan. 1、 The acceptance fee for the second instance case shall be borne by Cheng.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of domestic violence, and the Hohhot Intermediate Court has carefully tried the case in response to the unique characteristics of the target of domestic violence, the diversity of forms, the concealment of behavior, and the cyclical nature of results. The defendant, Cheng, was rude and domineering, and his mother was arrogant. The behavior of insulting the judge can confirm that domestic violence was the main reason for the breakdown of their marriage relationship. A complete family disintegrated, but the harm to Zhang's physical and mental health cannot be compensated for. In this case, Zhang was calm and rational, and did not use the method of "using violence to suppress violence" to resist. Instead, he took up the powerful weapon of law to defend his legitimate rights and interests. His strong legal consciousness deeply moved every judge. In the past, cases of divorce caused by domestic violence usually only ended with the termination of the marital relationship, and there were very few cases where victims filed civil lawsuits for personal injury after divorce. In this case, Zhang filed a criminal incidental civil lawsuit against Cheng for domestic violence during his marriage and received partial compensation. After divorce, a civil lawsuit was once again filed for personal injury caused by domestic violence. The case has had a profound impact on the local population, and it is of great significance to study and explore the application of the law and the prevention of domestic violence:

Firstly, the victim is able to collect, retain, and fix evidence of domestic violence in a timely manner, enabling the case to be successfully filed and ultimately judged, and the perpetrators of domestic violence are effectively punished;

Secondly, this case provides a clear path for victims of domestic violence to seek protection for personal injury compensation after divorce. The Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (1) defines domestic violence and clearly states the scope of domestic violence, providing a strong legal basis for judges to hear such cases;

Thirdly, incorrect understanding has been corrected. Criminal incidental civil judgments cannot include all the personal injury compensation that the victim should receive. For the part that has not been compensated to the victim, the victim has the right to file a separate civil lawsuit;

Fourthly, many cases of domestic violence have caused extremely serious consequences, some even causing personal injury or death. Legislators and even the entire society should reflect on how to use legislation and law enforcement actions to deter perpetrators of domestic violence before it occurs, and fundamentally curb domestic violence.

32

Liu Ping v. Kong Xiao Divorce Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In October 2012, Liu Ping and Kong Xiao got to know each other through an introduction. They registered for marriage on December 12, 2012, and immediately held a wedding ceremony. In January 2013, Liu Ping returned to his mother's house to live, and the two parties have been separated since then. During this period, Liu Ping filed a lawsuit for divorce, but the court did not grant permission in civil judgment (2013) Minmin Chu Zi No. 674. However, the two parties still failed to reconcile. Liu Ping once again filed his lawsuit with the court on October 31, 2013. After mediation, both parties held their own opinions and were unable to reach an agreement. Furthermore, it has been found that both parties have no joint property, debt or debt after marriage. It was also found that after meeting each other, the two parties entered into a marriage agreement in early December 2012. During this period, Kong Xiao paid Liu Ping a dowry of 10001 yuan, 10000 yuan when the wedding date was agreed upon, Liu Ping a meeting gift, and other items such as a ring (8800 yuan) and a mobile phone for Liu Ping. After the separation of the two parties, they negotiated the return of the dowry on February 6, 2013, and Liu Ping confirmed that the total amount of property was 43200 yuan. The dowry list provided by Kong Xiao includes a total of 43200 yuan in cash such as a deposit, the purchase of a ring for Liu Ping, mobile phones, and driving expenses. Liu Ping signed the list for confirmation. At the bottom of the list, Liu Yong, the younger brother of Liu Ping, stated: "We are scheduled to go to the Civil Affairs Bureau of Pingyi County early on February 7, 2013 to resolve the legal marriage between male Kong Xiao and female Liu Ping. (The female party pays in cash as a guarantee) The male party pays 43200.00 yuan and the female party pays it back as a guarantee." On one side of the list, Liu Yong stated: "We owe Kong Xiao cash of ¥ 43200.00 yuan (as the general ledger) to the borrower: Liu Yong on February 6, 2013.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Pingyi County held in the first instance that Liu Ping and Kong Xiao were still unable to reconcile after the court ruled against divorce, and their marital relationship had indeed broken down. Therefore, Liu Ping requested a divorce and granted permission. Both sides lived together for a relatively short period of time, and Kong Xiao requested Liu Ping to return the dowry paid according to customs, providing support. Liu Ping should return it appropriately. Therefore, the verdict allows Liu Ping and Kong Xiao to divorce. Liu Ping returned 15000 yuan to Kong Xiao for the dowry.

The Intermediate People's Court of Linyi City held in the second instance that the focus of controversy in this case is twofold: firstly, the amount of betrothal gifts; The second issue is the validity of the dowry list and debt confirmation clauses written by the appellant and his brother Wang Yong. Regarding the first focus of controversy, as both parties had verified the amount of the betrothal gifts on February 6, 2013, the appellant Kong Xiao's submission of the list of betrothal gifts written by Liu Yongshu during the trial should be considered as recognition of the confirmed amount in the list. Therefore, the appellant's claim that the actual cost of 80600 yuan was incurred by the appellant is not accepted by this court. Regarding the second focus of controversy, according to the content of the dowry list, it can be seen that Liu Yong, the younger brother of the appellant, only signed and confirmed the list as a representative of the woman's family, and there is no real loan relationship between the appellant Kong Xiao and Liu Yong. Therefore, the appellant's argument that if the respondent does not return the dowry, the dowry should be repaid by Liu Yong is not supported by this court. After signing the dowry repayment agreement, both parties did not register for divorce at the Pingyi County Civil Affairs Bureau. However, if the appellant Liu Ping refuses to return the amount of the dowry stated on the list, the list of dowry repayment will not take effect. The original trial court ruled that the return of 15000 yuan as a dowry by the appellant Liu Ping was not inappropriate based on the fact that both parties had already registered their marriage and the actual duration of the marriage. The appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. After the judgment, both parties were satisfied with the verdict and appealed.

（3） Typical significance

Before divorce proceedings, the parties involved in divorce cases often engage in multiple negotiations on property division and child rearing. During this process, it is possible to reach a consensus on the aforementioned issues and sign a written agreement. For cases where both parties register for divorce immediately after signing the agreement, the agreement is established and takes effect, and the content of the agreement is binding on both parties. However, in the case where divorce registration has not been completed after signing the agreement, Article 14 of the Interpretation (3) of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if the parties reach a property division agreement that is conditional on registering divorce or reaching an agreement to divorce in a people's court, if both parties fail to reach an agreement for divorce and one party retracts in the divorce lawsuit, the people's court shall determine that the property division agreement has not taken effect, And divide the joint property of the couple according to the actual situation in accordance with the law. This provides the final remedy for balancing the legitimate rights and interests of both parties and preventing them from making incorrect expressions of intent due to a lack of legal knowledge.

33

Chen Changzhen v. Chen Lucheng, Xu Lei, and Xu Chunyan in the Case of Maintenance Dispute

（1） Basic facts of the case

Plaintiff Chen Changzhen and Zhu Zhaoyun got married through government registration in 1986, and Zhu Zhaoyun remarried. In 1987, Zhu Zhaoyun took Xu Lei (born on June 8, 1975) and Xu Chunyan (born on February 10, 1978) to live together with Plaintiff Chen Changzhen in Dacaoling Village, Wentuan Town, Junan County, Shandong Province. On May 13, 1990, Chen Changzhen and Zhu Zhaoyun gave birth to their first son, Chen Lucheng. In 1991, the defendant Xu Lei left home to work, and in 1993, the defendant Xu Chunyan left home to work. In February 2012, Zhu Zhaoyun passed away. The plaintiff, Chen Changzhen, has basic living difficulties due to her advanced age and lack of livelihood. Due to the three defendants' refusal to fulfill their maintenance obligations, the plaintiff Chen Changzhen filed a lawsuit in this court, requesting a resolution.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Junan County, Linyi City, Shandong Province found that according to Chinese law, children have the obligation to support and assist their parents, and the rights and obligations between stepparents and stepchildren who receive their upbringing and education are consistent with the relationship between biological parents and children. Specifically, in this case, the defendants Xu Lei and Xu Chunyan lived together with their mother Zhu Zhaoyun and the plaintiff Chen Changzhen for a long time, receiving the plaintiff's upbringing and education, and forming a stepparent child relationship with the plaintiff. The defendants Xu Lei and Xu Chunyan have an obligation to support the plaintiff Chen Changzhen. The plaintiff is currently suffering from illness and living difficulties, and all three defendants have reached adulthood and have the ability to support. The plaintiff's claim is clear in facts and sufficient in evidence, and this court supports it. The standard of alimony for the plaintiff in this case should be based on the annual average living expenses of local farmers released by the statistical department in the previous year. Considering the shared living time and emotional factors of the defendants Xu Lei, Xu Chunyan, and Chen Changzhen, as well as the current economic situation of the two defendants, the court has determined that the amount of alimony borne by the defendants Xu Lei and Xu Chunyan should be 1500 yuan per person per year. The defendant Chen Lucheng is the biological son of the plaintiff Chen Changzhen, and he has a natural obligation to support the plaintiff Chen Changzhen. He voluntarily bears the maintenance fee of 3600 yuan per year according to the plaintiff's request, which is confirmed by this court.

The People's Court of Junan County, Linyi City, Shandong Province, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 21 and 27 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, has made the following judgment:

1、 Since 2014, the defendant Chen Lucheng has paid the plaintiff Chen Changzhen a maintenance fee of 3600 yuan for the current year before June 1st each year.

2、 Since 2014, the defendants Xu Lei and Xu Chunyan have respectively paid the plaintiff Chen Changzhen 1500 yuan in annual alimony before June 1st each year.

（3） Typical significance

Supporting the elderly is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, and doing a good job in supporting the elderly in rural areas is a long-term and arduous task. The issue of supporting stepparents is even more complex. Currently, there are many relationships between stepparents and stepchildren in rural areas. The relationship between stepparents and stepchildren is a sensitive social issue. It is of great social significance to have a correct understanding of the nature of the relationship between stepparents and children, and to apply relevant laws to comprehensively adjust the relationship between stepparents and children.

According to the law, if there is a foster relationship between stepparents and stepchildren, the stepchildren must bear the obligation to support the stepparents. For the special group of stepparents, judges should continuously analyze new situations, explore new methods, and solve new problems, timely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of rural elderly, ensure that the elderly live their old age in peace, and truly achieve a harmonious conclusion of the case.

34

Plaintiff Li Bolin and Li Ning v. Defendant Li Tao in the Dispute over Maintenance Fees

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Li Bolin is the son of the defendant Li Tao. The defendant Li Tao and the plaintiff's mother Li Ning agreed to divorce in September 2008 and went through divorce procedures with the civil affairs department. The divorce agreement stipulates that "the plaintiff Li Bolin shall be raised by the male party, and the female party shall temporarily take care of the child for four years. The male party shall not pay the child support fees. The child's college and marriage expenses shall be borne by the male party." At that time, the plaintiff Li Bolin had just turned 14 years old, and since then, the plaintiff Li Bolin has been taken care of by his mother Li Ning. Since September 2012, the plaintiff Li Bolin has been studying at Wuhan University of Science and Technology. In addition to paying annual tuition fees, campus accommodation fees, vocational training fees, etc., he also needs a large amount of living expenses. Therefore, the plaintiff Li Bolin has repeatedly asked the defendant for money to pay the above-mentioned expenses, but the defendant, as his father, has refused to pay them. The plaintiffs Li Bolin and Li Ning filed a lawsuit in court, requesting the court to order the defendant to pay tuition fees of 27840 yuan, living expenses of 60000 yuan, training fees of 4770 yuan, computer purchase fees of 6600 yuan, and down jacket purchase fees of 859 yuan, totaling 99469 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Linshu County, Shandong Province, in its first instance, held that this case arose from a dispute over the performance of the child rearing and education expenses agreement reached between the plaintiff Li Ning and the defendant Li Tao during their divorce. Therefore, Firstly, the legality of the agreement between the plaintiff Li Ning and the defendant Li Tao that "the plaintiff Li Bolin shall be raised by the male party, and the female party shall temporarily take care of the child for four years. The male party shall not pay the support fee, and all expenses for the child's college and marriage shall be borne by the male party" should be reviewed. Article 37 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that after divorce, if one party raises a child, the other party shall bear some or all of the necessary living and education expenses. The amount and duration of the expenses to be borne shall be agreed upon by both parties; When the agreement fails, the people shall make a judgment. According to this regulation, the living and education expenses of the child can be partially or fully borne by one party. The agreement between the plaintiff Li Ning and the defendant Li Tao regarding the manner and time of bearing the upbringing and upbringing expenses of the plaintiff Li Bolin does not violate the provisions of this law, and this agreement is the true expression of the plaintiff Li Ning and the defendant Li Tao, and the content does not violate the prohibitive provisions of other laws. The defendant Li Tao shall bear civil liability for paying the necessary living and education expenses during the university period to the plaintiff Li Bolin as agreed. Article 21, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulate: "Parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children; children have the obligation to support and assist their parents. When parents fail to fulfill their obligation to support their children, underage or children who cannot live independently have the right to demand support from their parents. This law stipulates the legal rights and obligations between parents and children in family relationships, Article 20 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (1) stipulates that 'children who cannot live independently' as stipulated in Article 21 of the Marriage Law refer to adult children who are still receiving high school education or below, or who are unable to maintain a normal life due to non subjective reasons such as loss or incomplete loss of labor ability, It is the definition of the scope of 'children who cannot live independently'. The above legal and judicial interpretations stipulate that the obligation of parents to support children who cannot live independently is a legal obligation, and do not prohibit parents from voluntarily or through agreed means to support children who are not "children who cannot live independently". Therefore, the defendant Li Tao cannot refuse to fulfill the obligation to support the plaintiff Li Bolin as agreed upon with the plaintiff Li Ning during the divorce based on the aforementioned laws and judicial interpretations. The plaintiff Li Bolin is currently a university student studying in school, and the defendant Li Tao has no evidence to prove that the plaintiff Li Bolin has a source of income that can sustain his own life and study in school. Therefore, he should bear the necessary expenses for the plaintiff Li Bolin's life and study during the university period as agreed upon with the plaintiff Li Ning at the time of divorce. The tuition fees of the plaintiff Li Bolin during his college years can be determined based on the receipt issued by his school of study. For the living expenses of the plaintiff Li Bolin, the court has comprehensively considered the consumption level of the place where the plaintiff Li Bolin studied and the income of the defendant Li Tao. It is determined that during the plaintiff Li Bolin's college years, the defendant shall pay an annual living expenses of 6000 yuan. The plaintiff, Li Bolin, did not provide evidence to prove that purchasing a computer and participating in extracurricular training were necessary expenses during their university years, and the defendant may not bear these expenses. The plaintiff Li Bolin's expenses for purchasing clothes should be included in the living expenses, and the court does not support his request for the defendant to bear the cost. Although the plaintiff Li Ning is a party to a divorce agreement with the defendant Li Tao, the right holder for the child support agreement should be the plaintiff Li Bolin. The plaintiff Li Bolin is of full age and has full civil capacity, and should independently exercise the right to request the child support in accordance with the law. The plaintiff Li Ning does not have the agreed right to request the maintenance fee of the plaintiff Li Bolin, and is not the subject of the right to the maintenance fee involved in the case. The plaintiff's subject is not qualified. According to Article 4 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 37 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, the following judgment is made in accordance with the law: 1. The defendant Li Tao shall pay the plaintiff Li Bolin the tuition fee of 27840 yuan for his college years; 2、 The defendant Li Tao paid the plaintiff Li Bolin 24000 yuan in living expenses during her college years; 3、 The first and second items mentioned above shall be paid in full within ten days after the effective date of this judgment; 4、 Reject the other litigation requests of the plaintiff Li Bolin; 5、 Reject the plaintiff Li Ning's lawsuit request.

（3） Typical significance

With the gradual popularization of higher education in China, attending universities (including various vocational and technical schools) has become a common choice for young people of appropriate age. In terms of traditional Chinese customs and the vast majority of family choices, it has become a convention for financially capable parents to pay for the expenses of financially independent children attending universities (including various vocational and technical schools). However, laws such as the General Principles of Civil Law, Marriage Law, and Law on the Protection of Minors in China have made provisions that contradict them, and parents are not obligated to pay this portion of the expenses. This creates conflicts between customary practices, social traditions, and legal provisions. Especially in divorced families, this conflict directly leads to the opposition and opposition of family relationships. This case is a typical case involving the burden of tuition and living expenses during university.

In this case, the divorce agreement between the plaintiff Li Ning and the defendant Li Tao represents the true intention of both parties. The agreement between the two parties regarding the tuition, living expenses, and marriage expenses for their children's college education is a part of their divorce agreement, and it is a reasonable arrangement made by both parties during the divorce regarding their children's education and marriage matters. In order to reach a divorce agreement, the plaintiff Li Ning voluntarily assumes the obligation of raising the plaintiff Li Bolin before reaching adulthood, And exempted the defendant Li Tao from the legal obligation to pay maintenance fees, which can also be seen as a concession made by the plaintiff Li Ning in other aspects to secure the child's college tuition and marriage expenses. This agreement does not violate the prohibitive provisions of the law, is legal and effective, and should be supported and recognized by the law. If the clause in the divorce agreement is deemed invalid, it not only violates the basic principles of civil law, but also harms the rights and interests of the plaintiff Li Ning. Therefore, the first instance court of this case, based on the principle of respecting the autonomy of the parties' will, supported the legitimate demands of the plaintiff Li Bolin in accordance with the law, providing a reference basis for the trial of similar cases.

35

Li Moufu v. Li Jia and Li Yi in the dispute over alimony

（1） Basic facts of the case

Li Moufu is 65 years old this year and has two sons with his wife, Li Jia and Li Yi. After his wife's death in 2001, Li Moufu never remarried and lived alone. Later, due to the expropriation of land, Li Moufu received nearly 200000 yuan in various government compensation payments. During the transitional resettlement period, Li Moufu and Li Jia lived together. Li Moufu is now filing a lawsuit with the People's Court of Jiangbei District, Chongqing, claiming that he is old, weak, and without a source of livelihood, demanding that Li Jia and Li Yi each pay their monthly living expenses of 500 yuan; In addition, if hospitalization medical expenses are incurred due to illness in the future, both sons will bear 50% each.

Li Jia argued that although he was disabled and his wife had been sick for many years, he was willing to live with his father. If father insists on living alone, he is willing to pay 500 yuan per month for living expenses. If his father falls ill and is hospitalized in the future, he is willing to bear half of the medical expenses.

Li Yi argues that he hopes his father can live together with him, but currently he is under great financial pressure and can only pay his father 200 yuan in monthly living expenses. If the father is to be hospitalized in the future, he should first pay with his savings, and bear 50% of the shortfall.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the court held that children have an obligation to support their parents. Li Moufu is already old and lacks the ability to work. He has the right to demand that his adult children provide support for him. After the land was expropriated, Li Moufu received nearly 200000 yuan in various compensation payments, but he did not own a house to live in and needed to rent or purchase a house, as well as purchase daily necessities. Li Moufu currently receives a monthly pension insurance payment of 605 yuan. Referring to the per capita consumption expenditure standard of urban residents in Chongqing in the previous year, Li Jia and Li Yi should also pay Li Moufu 300 yuan in monthly living expenses per person. Li Jia clearly expressed his willingness to pay 500 yuan, which was confirmed by the court. In addition, Li Moufu did not provide evidence to prove that he incurred hospitalization medical expenses, and he may separately claim against the obligor after the actual expenses were incurred. In summary, the court ruled that Li Jia should pay Li Moufu 500 yuan in monthly living expenses, and Li Yi should pay Li Moufu 300 yuan in monthly living expenses, rejecting Li Moufu's other litigation claims.

（3） Typical significance

With the development of social economy, the living pressure of young people is constantly increasing. Faced with the reality of relatively limited resources, there have been "gnawing on the elderly" and "disregarding the elderly". After working and starting a family, the 'gnawing old people' still reach out to their parents for money; The concept of 'no matter the ethnicity' is that parents have savings or a source of livelihood, do not fulfill their obligation to support, and allow the elderly to 'live and die on their own'. Article 21 of the Marriage Law stipulates that children have the obligation to support their parents. If a child fails to fulfill their obligation to support their parents, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their child pay maintenance fees. Article 14 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly stipulates that caregivers shall fulfill their obligations of providing economic support, daily care, and spiritual comfort to the elderly, and take care of their special needs. Therefore, children cannot completely ignore their parents just because they have savings or a certain source of income. This not only violates legal regulations, but also does not conform to the traditional virtue of the Chinese nation's "filial piety comes first". In daily life, we should provide the elderly with comprehensive care and love in material, spiritual, and daily life, properly arrange their clothing, food, housing, and transportation, encourage them to live a healthy and happy life, so that they can receive emotional comfort and spend their old age happily.

36

Marriage and Family Dispute Case between Zhang and Jiang

（1） Basic facts of the case

Jiang and Zhang got married on March 4, 2004 after being introduced and fell in love. After marriage, she gave birth to a son named Zhang on September 14, 2008. Later, both parties had arguments over trivial matters in their lives, resulting in disharmony between the couple. On April 25, 2014, Zhang entrusted the Judicial Appraisal Center of Southwest University of Political Science and Law to conduct paternity testing on Zhang and Zhang. The identification conclusion made by the center is that it does not support the existence of a biological relationship between Zhang and Zhang. Zhang filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that the plaintiff and defendant be divorced in accordance with the law. Jiang will bear the maintenance fee of 41387.5 yuan for Zhang's upbringing and compensate Zhang with 100000 yuan for mental damage and comfort. At the same time, it was found that after marriage, both parties jointly purchased a store located in a community in Dazhu County in 2006, with an area of 36.58 square meters and registered as Jiang as the property owner.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance trial of the Dazhu Court held that Zhang and Jiang often argued over trivial matters after marriage. After identification, Zhang was not Zhang's biological son and seriously injured the couple's relationship. Therefore, the court determined that the couple's relationship had indeed broken down. Zhang's request for Jiang to pay compensation for mental damage should be supported. Based on the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to determine a mental comfort payment of 30000 yuan; Zhang is neither Zhang's biological father nor his adoptive father's stepfather, making it impossible to establish maintenance obligations. Therefore, Zhang requests Jiang to pay Zhang's maintenance fee of 41387.5 yuan, which is justifiable and supported by the court; The purchase of a store located in a residential area in Dazhu County by both parties after marriage should be recognized as joint property of the couple, with each party sharing half of the property. Jiang claimed that when jointly renovating the plaintiff's parents' house after marriage, the value-added part should be evenly divided. As it involves third-party property rights, this case will not be dealt with. According to this judgment: 1. Allow the plaintiff Zhang to divorce the defendant Jiang; 2、 Zhang, a child born out of wedlock, was raised by the defendant Jiang. The defendant Jiang paid the plaintiff Zhang 41387.5 yuan in support of Zhang, and the defendant Jiang compensated the plaintiff Zhang with 30000 yuan in mental comfort; 3、 After marriage, the couple purchased and registered a store located in a community in Dazhu County under the name of defendant Jiang. The plaintiff and defendant each hold 50% of the property rights.

After the verdict was pronounced, Jiang appealed to the Dazhou Intermediate People's Court on the grounds of "the first instance court mistakenly relied on the inspection report from the Judicial Appraisal Center of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, and ruled that the appellant returned 41387.5 yuan in alimony and 30000 yuan in compensation for mental comfort to the appellant without factual basis, which is considered improper application of law".

The Dazhou Intermediate People's Court held that Zhang entrusted the Judicial Appraisal Center of Southwest University of Political Science and Law to produce a parent-child appraisal inspection report, and the conclusion of the inspection report is that there is no support for the existence of a biological relationship between Zhang and Zhang. Jiang appealed that the appraisal and inspection report of the Judicial Appraisal Center of Southwest University of Political Science and Law lacked authenticity and should not be accepted. However, in the first instance trial, after the original trial court explained to Jiang, Jiang had clearly stated that he did not apply for re appraisal. Jiang has no other evidence to prove that the appraisal institution or appraiser who made the inspection report does not have relevant appraisal qualifications, the appraisal procedure is seriously illegal, or the appraisal conclusion is clearly based on insufficient evidence. Therefore, the original trial court's acceptance of the appraisal conclusion is not inappropriate. Jiang appealed that he had suffered unlawful infringement, but did not provide evidence to prove it, and the reason for his claim was not accepted. Zhang has been identified as not Zhang's biological son, and Jiang's wrongful behavior has seriously harmed the couple's relationship. Jiang appealed that the reason for having a good relationship with Zhang cannot be established, and the original trial court ruled that divorce was granted correctly. Due to Jiang's fault during the marriage relationship, the original trial court ruled that it was not inappropriate for Jiang to compensate Zhang for mental damages. Zhang and Zhang are not related by blood and cannot be held responsible for their upbringing. Therefore, the upbringing fees paid for Zhang during the marriage relationship should be paid by Jiang to Zhang. The Dazhou Intermediate Court hereby ruled that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

Article 4 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the obligation of husband and wife to be faithful to and respect each other. Violation of the duty of loyalty often causes serious emotional and spiritual harm to the spouse. This is closely related to the general public's understanding of marriage and family in China due to habits, traditions, and other reasons. Therefore, Article 28 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (1) stipulates that the "compensation for damages" stipulated in Article 46 of the Marriage Law includes material damages and spiritual damages. If compensation for mental damage is involved, the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Determination of Liability for Mental Damage Compensation in Civil Torts shall apply. In this case, Zhang was found to have suffered mental harm after learning that Zhang was not his biological son. The reason for demanding compensation for mental damage compensation from Jiang was legitimate and supported by the court. However, since Zhang has no blood relationship with Zhang, Zhang is not obligated to provide support for him. Therefore, the court supported Zhang's claim to require Jiang to return the maintenance fees already borne by Zhang.

37

Dispute over Marital Support between Huang and Zhang

（1） Basic facts of the case

Huang and Zhang registered their marriage on December 31, 1987, and gave birth to a child (already an adult) after marriage. After their marriage, Huang and Zhang jointly purchased two sets of housing and one store in Jiulong Town, Yuechi County. One set of housing was used for the family to live in, while the other set of housing and store were rented out. In April 2009, Huang was diagnosed with "syringomyelia, depression" and has not yet recovered. He requires a large amount of medical expenses every month. In addition to being able to reimburse some of the medical expenses for hospitalization, the remaining medical expenses need to be borne by Huang himself. Huang is currently an employee of a company in Yuechi, Sichuan Province. Due to long-term sick leave, he receives a monthly salary of 1188 yuan, and housing and store rent of 24000 yuan per year is collected by Huang. Zhang, a laid-off employee from a certain bank, received a monthly subsidy of 1476 yuan for the living difficulties of laid-off unemployed military cadres. He suffers from "fatty liver and prostate cysts" and has a mother to support. After being laid off, Zhang worked as a supervisor in the field of foreign affairs for many years and earned a relatively high income. In recent years, due to personality incompatibility and Huang's illness, there have been frequent conflicts between Huang and Zhang. Zhang has filed multiple lawsuits for divorce, but due to Huang's resolute refusal to agree to divorce, Zhang's divorce claims have been rejected, and Zhang has left home to rent a house. On June 5, 2014, Huang filed a lawsuit with the Yuechi Court, claiming that she was suffering from multiple illnesses and required a monthly medication fee of over 10000 yuan. Zhang did not fulfill her husband's obligations, resulting in her mounting debt. She requested the court to judge Zhang to fulfill her maintenance obligations and bear medical expenses, living allowances, and nursing expenses of 6000 yuan per month. Zhang argued that Huang has a fixed monthly income, rental housing, and medical insurance reimbursement for medical expenses. His family's years of savings are all in Huang's place. He is also suffering from multiple illnesses, has been laid off, has low wages, and also needs to support his mother in her 90s. He does not agree to pay Huang's support.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Yuechi Court held that couples have an obligation to support each other. Huang and Zhang are legally married and should have cared for and supported each other. Huang is currently suffering from a serious illness and needs someone to take care of him. However, Zhang ran away from home, causing Huang to face difficulties in life. During Huang's sick leave period, his salary income was meager, and although he still had rental income, he had to bear a portion of his medical expenses in addition to medical insurance reimbursement. The expenses were relatively difficult to bear compared to Huang's income. Therefore, Huang's life is very difficult, and Zhang has been working outside except for receiving a fixed monthly subsidy of 1476 yuan per month for military transition cadres. Therefore, Zhang should pay Huang's maintenance fee to fulfill his maintenance obligations. Based on the situation of both parties, considering factors such as Huang having another son who should fulfill his support obligations in accordance with the law, it is considered more appropriate for Zhang to pay Huang 1000 yuan/month in support. Thus, it was ruled that Zhang paid Huang 1000 yuan per month for medical, living allowances, nursing and other support expenses.

Huang and Zhang both refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to this court. Huang appealed that in the first instance, the maintenance fee paid by Zhang was too low, and requested that the second instance change the sentence to Zhang's maintenance fee of 6000 yuan per month. Zhang appealed that the first trial ruled that he made an error in paying Huang 1000 yuan in monthly maintenance fees, and requested that the second trial change the ruling that he would not pay.

This court believes that the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that couples have the obligation to support each other. If one party fails to fulfill their support obligations, the party in need of support has the right to demand the other party to pay maintenance fees. Huang and Zhang are husband and wife, who should have cared for and helped each other. However, Zhang did not fulfill his husband's obligations and ran away from home when Huang was seriously ill and needed his husband's care. Although Huang currently has salary income and rental income, he has to take multiple medications every day and bear a considerable amount of medical expenses every month, which has led to difficulties for Huang. As a husband, Zhang should fulfill his obligation to support Huang in accordance with the law. Although Zhang is also sick, Zhang has not provided evidence to prove that his illness requires a large amount of medical expenses. In addition to receiving a fixed monthly subsidy of 1476 yuan/month for military transition cadres, Zhang has been working outside and has a certain income. Huang also did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Zhang has the financial ability to pay 6000 yuan per month. Based on the actual situation of both parties, combined with the fact that Huang and his son should fulfill their maintenance obligations in accordance with the law and Zhang has certain economic capacity, it is appropriate for Zhang to pay Huang 1000 yuan in monthly maintenance fees. The ruling rejected both parties' appeals and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, due to the illness of one spouse, the relationship between the couple has weakened, and accidents have made it difficult to maintain the marriage. When one spouse leaves home and does not divorce, as well as when one spouse resolutely divorces and fails to fulfill their support obligations, the other spouse resolutely does not divorce, there have been increasing cases of marital support in marital and family disputes. Article 20 of China's Marriage Law stipulates that spouses have the obligation to support each other. When one party fails to fulfill their maintenance obligations, the party in need of maintenance has the right to demand payment of maintenance fees from the other party. The obligation of marital support is not only a moral issue, but also a legal obligation between husband and wife. The party with the ability to support must consciously fulfill this obligation, especially in cases where the other party falls ill or loses the ability to work. If one party fails to fulfill this legal obligation, the other party may realize its legitimate rights and interests through legal means. The assumption of maintenance responsibility is not only a prerequisite for the maintenance and survival of marital relationships, but also a guarantee for couples to live together. In this case, Huang and Zhang are legitimate spouses. Currently, Huang is suffering from a disease and requires a large amount of medical expenses. However, Zhang has abandoned the situation and filed for divorce multiple times. In the first and second trials, considering that Huang indeed needs support and Zhang has certain financial capacity, Zhang has decided to pay Huang 1000 yuan in monthly support during his marriage, fully protecting the rights of the party in need of support, It also serves as a warning to those who do not fulfill their marital support obligations.

38

A dispute over a sister-in-law claiming child support from an "uncle"

（1） Basic facts of the case

Zeng is Liu's sister-in-law, and the houses where both parties reside need to be relocated due to government expropriation. Zeng urgently needs to rent another house to live in, so he entrusted Liu to help find a house. In April 2012, Liu falsely claimed to have found a house, and Zeng followed him to inspect the house. Liu took Zeng to the house where he was helping people decorate, and the two parties had sexual intercourse. A month later, Zeng found out that he was pregnant and informed Liu that Liu had asked Zeng to give birth to the child. In February 2013, Zeng gave birth to a healthy baby boy and borrowed money to pay social support fees (the baby boy was born with a second child). When Zeng asked Liu to pay the corresponding expenses such as medical expenses and social support for the child during childbirth, Liu refused to pay and refused to acknowledge that the child was his biological child. Zeng had no choice but to bring Liu's hair to the identification center for identification, confirming that the child was born to Liu and that Zeng's husband, Liu, was not the biological father of the child. But Liu still refused to pay the corresponding fees. Zeng filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that Liu pay the corresponding expenses such as medical expenses, social support fees, and living expenses.

After being accepted by the People's Court of Yantan District, in order to investigate the facts, upon Liu's application, a corresponding appraisal institution was entrusted to conduct an appraisal on whether the son born to Zeng was Liu's biological child. After appraisal, the child was confirmed to be the biological child of Liu and Zeng.

（2） Judgment results

After investigating this fact, the undertaker publicized the law to both parties, making them aware of their own responsibilities and obligations. Both parties voluntarily reached an agreement that the child would live together with Zeng. Liu would pay the child a monthly living allowance of 650 yuan from August 2014 until the child lived independently. Both parties would bear 50% of the child's education and medical expenses, and Liu would pay Zeng's advanced medical expenses, social support fees, and other expenses of 34000 yuan. The storm of 'Uncle's own son' has now subsided.

（3） Typical significance

From a biological perspective, Liu is the father of a child, and according to the Marriage Law, biological fathers have the obligation to raise and educate their children. However, considering that both parties have their own families, raising children together is an unstable factor for both families, so it is advisable to pay maintenance fees.

39

The divorce dispute case between plaintiff Tang and defendant Jiang

（1） Basic facts of the case

In March 2009, the plaintiff and defendant met through a marriage search, and in June of the same year, they registered their marriage. As both of them remarried, the plaintiff had a daughter before marriage. After marriage, both parties gave birth to a daughter named Jiang on July 6, 2013. Later, due to differences in personality and lifestyle habits, the plaintiff and defendant often had arguments. The plaintiff believed that they were physically and mentally injured and requested a divorce from the plaintiff and defendant. In addition, the plaintiff had a daughter named Tang before marriage, who was raised by the plaintiff.

Upon further investigation, the plaintiff and defendant purchased a commercial housing before marriage, and after marriage, the defendant's unit allocated them a fundraising housing.

（2） Judgment results

This court believes that both the plaintiff and the defendant have been married for 5 years and gave birth to a daughter in 2013. The daughter was less than one year old at the time of the plaintiff's divorce lawsuit, and the two parties have been married for 5 years. They have had enough time to get to know each other and have a strong emotional foundation. Although the defendant agreed to divorce at one point during this court's litigation process, this court believes that the prerequisite for divorce is a breakdown of their relationship, After the birth of their daughter, there were many conflicts between the two parties. In fact, there was less communication between the two parties, which affected their emotions. The plaintiff and defendant were both knowledgeable, educated, and legitimate national staff members, and both parties had no bad habits. As long as both parties understood and allowed each other, thought from different perspectives, and communicated more, the conflicts between the two parties could be resolved. The relationship between the two parties had not yet completely broken down. In addition, the legitimate daughter of both parties, Jiang, was less than one year old at the time of the plaintiff's lawsuit for divorce. Therefore, this court does not support the plaintiff's request for divorce. According to Article 32 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Evidence in Civil Litigation, the court rejects the plaintiff's request for divorce.

（3） Typical significance

In judicial practice, in divorce cases accepted by the court, in order to improve the relationship between the two parties, promote family harmony, and social stability, for some cases where the marital relationship has not yet broken down or one party has no evidence to prove that the marital relationship has indeed reached the level of breakdown, the court will make a decision not to allow divorce, in order to treat marital and family issues with caution and to reconcile. In the above situation, some parties involved in divorce cases can correct their shortcomings, strengthen communication and communication, increase the closeness of the couple's relationship, and make peace as before.

The most essential factor and foundation of marriage should be the emotions between spouses, and living together is an inevitable requirement based on emotions, which is also an important part of marital relationships. In this case, although the plaintiff claimed that there were frequent arguments between the two parties, they did not provide evidence to prove that the marital relationship had indeed reached the level of rupture. As long as both parties showed mutual understanding and compromise, exchanged ideas, and communicated more, the conflict between the two parties could be resolved, and the relationship between the two parties had not yet completely broken down. In addition, the legitimate daughter Jiang of both parties was less than one year old at the time of the plaintiff's lawsuit for divorce. The divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant is not conducive to the physical and mental health of the child, and may have adverse effects on their growth. Therefore, this court does not support the plaintiff's request for divorce.

40

Zhang Laotai and Child Support Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Before the father's death, the three children reached an agreement on the support of their mother, Mrs. Zhang, and agreed to pay their mother 500 yuan in monthly support. Unexpectedly, a year later, Old Lady Zhang gave her property to her son Li Jun for free, and now her eldest daughter Li Li and youngest daughter Li Fei were unwilling to do so.

In December 2014, Mrs. Zhang sued Li Li, Li Fei, and Li Jun's three children to the People's Court of Midong District, Urumqi City, demanding that the three defendants pay a monthly alimony of 500 yuan (starting from June 2014) and bear the litigation costs of this case. At the trial, Zhang Laotai entrusted a proxy lawyer to appear in court due to being far away from Guangdong, and her younger daughter Li Fei entrusted a proxy to appear in court, claiming that the three parties to the maintenance agreement signed in April 2013 had not actually fulfilled it, and she did not agree to continue fulfilling it; Mother Zhang Laotai has her own retirement salary, savings, and savings. Her economic income is relatively high and her life is relatively comfortable, which does not belong to the category of lack of economic ability. It is clearly stipulated in the law that it does not require certain payment of alimony; In addition, Li Fei also believes that this case was filed by his son Li Jun under the guise of his mother, Mrs. Zhang, and was actually done by Li Jun to embezzle his mother's property; Therefore, I do not agree to pay my mother, Mrs. Zhang, a monthly alimony of 500 yuan.

The eldest daughter Li Li did not appear in court to participate in the lawsuit, but submitted a written defense opinion to the court and did not agree to pay the plaintiff Zhang Laotai's alimony at the standard of 500 yuan per month. The reason is that the maintenance agreement in April 2013 was signed by the third child, not with Mrs. Zhang. The agreement was officially terminated in November 2014, and Li Li mailed the "Notice of Termination of Maintenance Agreement" to the defendants Li Fei and Li Jun in November 2014. After Li Fei and Li Jun signed for it, the agreement was terminated on November 28, 2014; Secondly, the prosecution in this case was not initiated by the mother Zhang Laotai herself, and the handwriting on the indictment was not signed by the mother herself. It was Li Jun who falsely sued his daughter in court under the name of his mother; Thirdly, in the April 2013 agreement, it was clearly stipulated that "the elderly care housing of Mother Zhang Laotai is not allowed to be sold or disposed of during her lifetime, and will be kept for later use". Mother Zhang Laotai has donated the house located in Urumqi worth over 400000 yuan to Li Jun for free. Li Jun expressed his voluntary obligation to support and take care of Mother Zhang Laotai, and Li Jun's behavior has fundamentally changed the objective situation in the maintenance agreement, Therefore, the maintenance agreement should be terminated; Fourthly, the plaintiff, Mrs. Zhang, has a fixed retirement pension of over 3000 yuan per month, as well as a personal savings deposit of 70000 yuan. With a relatively affluent economic income, she does not need her children to pay any further alimony.

The defendant Li Jun did not appear in court to participate in the lawsuit, but submitted a written defense opinion to the court, agreeing to pay a monthly alimony of 500 yuan.

After trial, the court found that the plaintiff, Zhang Laotai, is a retired family member of a company in Urumqi, with a monthly income of nearly 3000 yuan, including pension and other living allowances. After marrying her husband Li, Mrs. Zhang gave birth to her eldest daughter Li Li, her eldest son Li Jun, and her second daughter Li Fei. In April 2013, the eldest daughter Li Li drafted a "maintenance agreement", The agreement stipulates: "Firstly, the mother's existing house is not allowed to be sold during her lifetime and can be used for her own use in her later years. During the idle period, she can rent it out at her discretion, but the house can be rented out to the metal mother. Secondly, the mother has her own retirement income, and the three children need to take turns to bear the obligation of accompanying care. Which child will take care of the mother, and the other two children need to pay 500 yuan in monthly maintenance fees, which will be transferred to the designated account before the 30th of each month When signing the maintenance agreement, the plaintiff Zhang Laotai knew and agreed to the content of the maintenance agreement. After the agreement was signed, the mother first lived with her eldest daughter Li Li, and then lived with her son Li Jun in Guangdong from the end of November 2013 to the trial in 2015. Previously, Li Jun also paid monthly alimony to the mother. Li Li, the eldest daughter, and Li Fei, the youngest daughter, paid their mother monthly maintenance until May 2014. However, upon learning that their mother had gifted their house in Urumqi to their younger brother Li Jun for free, Li Li and Li Fei no longer paid for their mother's maintenance. On November 25, 2014, Li Li mailed a notice of termination of the maintenance agreement to Li Fei and Li Jun through EMS. After receiving the notice, Li Fei expressed her written consent to terminate the maintenance agreement.

In response to the issue of Li Fei and Li Li ever submitting the plaintiff's lawsuit and their power of attorney, which were not signed by themselves and applied for the authenticity of the signature for handwriting signature, the judge considered that the plaintiff, Mrs. Zhang, was elderly and lived in Guangdong, and could not personally participate in the trial. After communicating with her over the phone, the judge, In March 2015, Mrs. Zhang completed signature notarization and entrusted notarization for the civil lawsuit and the power of attorney of the agent at the local notary office in Guangdong.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Midong District, Urumqi City believes that according to the Marriage Law, children have the obligation to support their parents. When a child fails to fulfill their obligation to support their parents, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their child pay support. This article stipulates that the obligation to maintain oneself is a basic legal obligation, as it involves the most basic identity and blood relationships and basic social morality, and is a statutory mandatory obligation that cannot be arbitrarily relieved by the caregiver. And this provision also clearly stipulates that the object of support is "parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life", that is, as long as parents meet or have no ability to work or have difficulties in life, their children should fulfill their support obligations, rather than "having no ability to work and have difficulties in life". In this case, the plaintiff Zhang Laotai was already 83 years old during the litigation period, which can be considered as having no labor ability according to legal regulations. Even if she has a fixed monthly income, it does not affect her demand for alimony from her children.

At the same time, Article 19 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly stipulates: "If the caregiver fails to fulfill their obligations, the elderly have the right to demand the caregiver to pay maintenance fees." Article 20 of the Law stipulates: "With the consent of the elderly, the caregivers can sign an agreement to fulfill their maintenance obligations. The content of the maintenance agreement shall not violate the provisions of the law or the wishes of the elderly, The maintenance agreement must meet the following conditions: firstly, the main body of the agreement is limited to the relationship between the maintenance personnel; The second is that the form of the maintenance agreement must be in writing; The third is that the maintenance agreement signed by the caregiver must obtain the consent of the elderly person being supported before it can be effective. In this case, the defendants Li Li, Li Fei, and Li Jun, as caregivers, signed a written agreement in April 2013 regarding the matter of supporting their mother Zhang Laotai. Zhang Laotai knew and agreed to the agreement, and after the agreement was signed, the defendants Li Li and Li Fei actually fulfilled the agreement for six months, while Li Jun fulfilled it for five months. Although the defendant Li Li argued that the notice of termination of the agreement had been mailed to Li Jun in writing, and Li Jun did not file a lawsuit with the court after receiving the agreement, which led to the termination of the agreement. However, due to the mandatory and personal nature of the child's maintenance obligations and the basic social morality involved, the nature of the maintenance agreement is not the same as that of the general contract law, and the termination conditions are also different from those of the agreement in the contract law, The obligation of maintenance cannot be waived in the form of a unilateral agreement, so the defense reason of defendant Li Li cannot be established, and the court will not accept it. The maintenance agreement of April 2013 is legal and valid, and should continue to be fulfilled. The final court ruled that the eldest daughter Li Li, son Li Jun, and youngest daughter Li Fei should each pay Zhang Laotai a total of 5000 yuan in alimony for ten months from June 2014 to March 2015, which should be paid in full within ten days of the judgment coming into effect.

（3） Typical significance

As the ancient saying goes, 'raising children to prevent aging'. Although traditional people mainly place the obligation to provide for the elderly on their sons, in modern society, daughters and sons have the same obligation to support their parents. This is a statutory mandatory obligation and will not be lifted due to the fault of their parents or other reasons. Parents can spare no effort to raise their children to adulthood, and children should also take care of and support the elderly unconditionally. Animals still have 'crow feeding' The act of kneeling on the milk of a lamb, as the spirit of all things, humans should do better.

41

Zhu Shaochang v. Zhu Zhengfang, Zhu Zhengde, and Zhu Lixiang in the dispute over alimony

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Zhu Shaochang married Huang Taoxiang in 1947 and gave birth to two sons, Zhu Zhengfang and Xiaohe. In 1959, Xiao Hesheng and Huang Taoxiang died one after another. In 1961, the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang remarried with Wang Zhifang. Wang Zhifang brought his 9-year-old former legitimate daughter Zhu Lixiang and 7-year-old former legitimate son Zhu Zhengde to live at the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang's home, forming a new family with the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang and his former legitimate son Zhu Zhengfang. The plaintiff Zhu Shaochang and Wang Zhifang remarried and gave birth to two daughters, Zhu Guiju and Zhu Guiping. Later, the defendant Zhu Zhengfang married the defendant Zhu Lixiang, and the defendant Zhu Zhengde also married at home. Zhu Guiju and Zhu Guiping married outside, and Zhu Guiju died in 1986. After the death of the mother of the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang in 1989, the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang and Wang Zhifang went to Chuxiong to make a living. On April 26, 2000 in the lunar calendar, Wang Zhifang passed away due to illness, and the defendant Zhu Zhengde handled the aftermath for him according to the separation agreement. Later, the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang still lived in Chuxiong. On November 13, 2007, the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Yao'an County, demanding that the defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Zhengde fulfill their maintenance obligations. The case was tried by this court and a civil judgment (2007) Yao Min Chu Zi No. 369 was made on December 4, 2007. The judgment is as follows: 1. The plaintiff Zhu Shaochang's responsible land is cultivated by the defendant Zhu Zhengfang, and 200 kilograms of rice are given to the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang before October 31 each year, and various public welfare burdens are borne; 2、 Defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Zhengde shall respectively pay the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang maintenance fees of 120 yuan and 360 yuan annually, which shall be paid in full before October 31st; 3、 The defendant Zhu Zhengfang will hand over the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang's house to him for residential use; 4、 The plaintiff Zhu Shaochang's medical expenses shall be borne by Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Zhengde, each accounting for one-fifth; If the above judgment contains enforcement content, it shall be enforced from January 1, 2008. After the People's Court of Yao'an County issued the civil judgment (2007) Yao Min Chu Zi No. 369, the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture issued the civil judgment (2008) Chu Zhong Min Yi Zhong Zi No. 68 on March 28, 2008, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. On June 30, 2015, plaintiff Zhu Shaochang filed a lawsuit again with the Yao An Court regarding his maintenance issues, citing the fact that the original judgment determined that the maintenance fee was too low to maintain basic living.

（2） Judgment results

After trial by the People's Court of Yao'an County, it was found that, Article 21 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children; children have the obligation to support and assist their parents. When parents fail to fulfill their obligation to support their children, underage or children who cannot live independently have the right to demand support from their parents. When children fail to fulfill their obligation to support, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand support from their children, The plaintiff Zhu Shaochang filed a lawsuit with this court on November 13, 2007, demanding that the defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Zhengde fulfill their obligation to pay their alimony. Our court and the Intermediate People's Court of Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture have made judgments after trial, and the defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Zhengde have been awarded alimony to the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang. The plaintiff, Zhu Shaochang, once again filed a lawsuit against this court regarding his maintenance issue, citing the fact that the original judgment determined that the maintenance fee paid was too low and it was difficult to maintain basic living. After trial by the Yao'an Court, it was found that the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang's demand for the defendants Zhu Zhengfang, Zhu Zhengde, and Zhu Lixiang to pay their alimony was in accordance with legal provisions. However, when determining the payment of alimony by the defendants Zhu Zhengfang, Zhu Zhengde, and Zhu Lixiang to the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang, full consideration should be given to the actual needs of the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang and the ability of the defendants Zhu Zhengfang, Zhu Zhengde, and Zhu Lixiang to fulfill their obligations. Therefore, the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang's lawsuit request is partially supported by our court in accordance with the law. According to Article 21 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

1、 The responsibility of the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang is to be cultivated by the defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Lixiang, who will provide 200 kilograms of rice to the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang before October 31, 2015.

2、 The defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Lixiang shall pay the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang a living allowance of 500 yuan before October 31 of each year (including 2015), and the defendant Zhu Zhengde shall pay the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang a living allowance of 500 yuan before October 31 of each year (including 2015).

3、 The medical expenses of the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang shall be borne 50% by the defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Lixiang, and 25% by the defendant Zhu Zhengde. The defendants Zhu Zhengfang, Zhu Lixiang, and Zhu Zhengde shall pay the plaintiff Zhu Shaochang in two installments each year, with payment made before April 30th and before October 31st of each year (including 2015).

4、 The provisions of the first, second, and third paragraphs above shall be enforced from the date of the effective judgment.

The case acceptance fee is 50 yuan, with defendants Zhu Zhengfang and Zhu Lixiang bearing 25 yuan, and defendant Zhu Zhengde bearing 25 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

With the rapid increase in the aging population in China, the issue of supporting rural elderly has become a prominent social phenomenon.

In this case, the elderly are all in their 80s, and their children are also in their 60s. The children do not have formal jobs and rely on the next generation to support them. However, due to the elderly feeling that the maintenance fees are too low, they still have to sue their children in their 60s. So during the trial of the case, the presiding judge took into account various factors and China's Marriage Law stipulated: "Parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children, and children have the obligation to support and support their parents. When children do not fulfill their maintenance obligations, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their children pay maintenance fees." This indicates that the rights and obligations between parents and children are equal, and parents raise their children, Having fulfilled their responsibilities to society and the family, children should also fulfill their obligation to support and support their parents when they are old and frail. The Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly in China stipulates that elderly care mainly relies on the family, and family members should care for and take care of the elderly. Supporters should fulfill their obligations of providing economic support, daily care, and spiritual comfort to the elderly, taking care of their special needs, and providing medical expenses and care for the elderly who are sick. If the caregiver fails to fulfill their maintenance obligations, the elderly have the right to demand that the caregiver pay maintenance fees. Supporters can sign agreements between them to fulfill their maintenance obligations and obtain the consent of the elderly.

The famous saying of Mencius, the sage, "The world can be carried by the palm of the hand when we are old and people are old, and when we are young and people are young," has raised the respect for the old and love for the young to the height of governing the country and securing the country, and has become the essence of China's traditional filial piety culture. Most parents in the world are selfless and almost perfect in their efforts to raise their children to adulthood. They still dedicate their "waste heat" without complaint or regret: they take care of their grandchildren and work as "free canteens, hotels, and nannies". They are comforted by their children and even ruthlessly "nibble" or "scrape" their old age, without seeking any return. As long as they see that their children are happy and promising, they are very satisfied. By comparison, how are the children doing? The answer is regrettable and surprising: in today's aging society in our country, many children and parents face legal challenges because the elderly do not receive appropriate or even basic support. After conflicts and tears, parents and descendants finally reluctantly confront each other in court. This cannot be said to be a phenomenon that is incompatible with the overall background of contemporary harmonious society. Why is the familial relationship between children and parents so weak in today's society, where the economy is soaring and living standards are constantly improving? The white hair and clear tears of the elderly, as well as the disputes and sighs of generations of children, cannot help but arouse our deep contemplation.

42

Feng v. Cai Dispute over Termination of Adoption Relationship

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 21, 2001, Feng and his wife from Shizong County, Yunnan Province gave birth to their daughter Cai Qiong. Starting from 2002, Feng agreed that Cai Qiong should be raised by the defendant Cai, and left Cai Qiong's household registration on Cai's household registration book. However, Cai did not go to the relevant department for adoption procedures. Later, the relationship between Cai Qiong and Cai deteriorated, and Cai beat and scolded Cai Qiong. The conflict between Cai Qiong and Cai became increasingly deepening. Feng is now suing the court for the issue of Cai Qiong's upbringing, requesting a ruling to terminate the adoption relationship between Cai and Cai Qiong.

（2） Judgment results

The Shizong County Court in Yunnan Province held that Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the "Adoption Law of the People's Republic of China" revised on November 4, 1998 stipulates that adoption should be registered with the civil affairs department of the people's government at or above the county level. The adoption relationship shall be established from the date of registration. In this case, Cai's upbringing of Cai Qiong has been ongoing since 2002 and no adoption registration procedures have been completed with the civil affairs department. Therefore, there is no adoption relationship between Cai and Cai Qiong. The plaintiff Feng's custody of Cai Qiong still exists. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to terminate the adoption relationship between Cai and Cai Qiong, and the court did not support it in accordance with the law. Thus, the court ruled to dismiss Feng's lawsuit request.

（3） Typical significance

Many adoption relationships in our country do not involve signing written adoption agreements or handling adoption registration procedures, but rather factual adoption relationships. If the fact of adoption occurs after the promulgation of the Adoption Law, is such an adoption relationship valid?

When the adoption law was revised in 1999, the establishment of an adoption relationship was already limited to "adoption should be registered with the civil affairs department of the people's government at or above the county level. Legitimate and effective adoption relationships should be registered with the civil affairs department. Similarly, adoption relationships established before the implementation of the adoption law are also tacitly accepted, and adoptions that have not been registered after the promulgation of the adoption law are not protected by law.

43

The divorce case between plaintiff Lv Moufang and defendant Xu Moukun

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Lv Moufang and the defendant Xu Moukun got to know each other freely in 2003 after being introduced by the plaintiff's aunt. They registered their marriage on June 24, 2004. After marriage, the two parties moved to Xuanwei City, Yunnan Province in 2006 and opened a restaurant in 2009. Both parties gave birth to their eldest son on October 26, 2004, currently in fourth grade; On March 6, 2009, she gave birth to her second son and is currently attending preschool classes. Both of her sons now live with the plaintiff's parents. During the period of living together after marriage, the defendant Xu Moukun suspected that the plaintiff Lv Moufang had an improper sexual relationship with others, resulting in conflicts between the two parties. On March 22, 2015, the plaintiff and defendant engaged in a brawl. On June 25, 2015, the plaintiff Lv Moufang filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xuanwei City, demanding a divorce from the defendant. The plaintiff raised the eldest and second sons born to the defendant, and the defendant paid a monthly maintenance fee of 4000 yuan until the child reached adulthood. Both parties have a common property deposit of over 500000 yuan and a restaurant value of 55000 yuan, which is divided equally by both parties. Furthermore, it was found that from February 4 to March 9, 2015, the defendant Xu Moukun cancelled seven fixed term all-in-one sub accounts from the Agricultural Bank of China Xuanwei Banqiao Branch, with a total withdrawal amount of 553932.14 yuan; The restaurant operated by both parties after marriage has been sold and divided equally. During the trial, the plaintiff Lv Moufang insisted on divorce, with the plaintiff responsible for raising the second son and the defendant responsible for raising the eldest son. Both parties did not pay any maintenance fees to each other. Both parties have an equal division of common property deposits, and the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 270000 yuan, and the defendant shall bear the litigation costs of this case. The defendant Xu Moukun agreed to divorce, but the two children were to be raised by the defendant and there was no need for the plaintiff to pay maintenance fees. The defendant compensated the plaintiff with 20000 yuan in a lump sum. Due to significant differences between the two parties regarding the issue of child rearing, the amount of shared deposits, and the division of opinions, mediation was unable to reach an agreement.

（2） Judgment results

The court believes that during the period of living together between the plaintiff Lv Moufang and the defendant Xu Moukun after marriage, there was an argument over family matters, which resulted in an uneasy relationship between the two parties; The plaintiff Lv Moufang filed a lawsuit requesting a divorce from the defendant Xu Moukun, and the defendant Xu Moukun also agreed to the divorce, which should be granted. The plaintiff and defendant have different opinions on the issue of raising children born in wedlock. As Xu Qiren is now over 10 years old and has been solicited by the court for his opinion, he expressed willingness to live with the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is responsible for raising the eldest son born in wedlock, and the defendant is responsible for raising the second son. Regarding the issue of common property between both parties, according to the detailed account details of the defendant Xu Xiangkun issued by the Xuanwei Banqiao Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, it can be confirmed that the defendant Xu Xiangkun cancelled seven fixed term one book sub accounts from February 4 to March 9, 2015, with a total amount of 553932.14 yuan. Defendant Xu Moukun argued that the bank's inquiry results were incorrect, which was the amount of the defendant's repeated deposits and withdrawals. However, the bank's inquiry records only included the defendant's withdrawal records and no cash deposit records. Defendant Xu Moukun's defense cannot be established; Another defendant, Xu Moukun, claimed that both parties only had a joint deposit of over 270000 yuan, but it had been withdrawn for both parties' household expenses, daily expenses, and the defendant's purchase of lottery tickets. The defendant did not submit evidence to prove that the funds withdrawn were used for normal and reasonable expenses, and the defendant's defense cannot be established. The defendant Xu Moukun withdrew 553932.14 yuan from the Xuanwei Banqiao Branch of Agricultural Bank of China, which was the legitimate income obtained by the plaintiff and defendant during their marriage. It was the common property of the plaintiff and defendant that should be evenly divided, that is, each person should receive 276966.07 yuan. The plaintiff Lv Moufang only claimed that the defendant Xu Moukun would pay him 270000 yuan, which was allowed by law. Defendant Xu Moukun claims that the second brother of plaintiff Lv Moufang still owes both parties 4000 yuan, but has not submitted evidence to prove it. Therefore, this claim is not recognized in this case. Defendant Xu Moukun claims that both parties have ham worth more than 20000 yuan stored at the parents' home of plaintiff Lv Moufang. As the defendant Xu Moukun did not submit evidence to prove it, it is not determined in this case. According to the provisions of Article 32, Article 36, and Article 39 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is made as follows: 1. Divorce is granted to the plaintiff Lv Moufang and the defendant Xu Moukun; 2、 The eldest son born by both parties in marriage is raised by the plaintiff Lv Moufang, and the second son is raised by the defendant Xu Moukun; 3、 The defendant Xu Moukun shall pay the plaintiff Lv Moufang RMB 270000 within five days from the effective date of this judgment. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

In divorce proceedings, many parties are concerned that the other party may start concealing their family's common property, but this concern is not unnecessary. Almost 60% of cases involve one party suspected of concealing their property. Therefore, in order to prevent the other party from concealing their property, preparations should be made in advance. For example, before filing a lawsuit, collect invoices for the family's shared property, or invite friends to testify, while also using image forensics technology. In addition, for bank deposits, stock funds, etc., you can apply for court investigation or a lawyer to issue an investigation order at the same time as filing a lawsuit. Once the whereabouts of the property are found, property preservation measures can be taken according to the situation. In this case, the plaintiff applied to the court to investigate and collect evidence. The court retrieved the account opening and transaction details of the defendant Xu Xiangkun from the Xuanwei Banqiao Branch of Agricultural Bank of China. It was found that the defendant Xu Xiangkun had closed seven fixed term all-in-one sub accounts from February 4th to March 9th, totaling 553932.14 yuan. Therefore, the court made the aforementioned judgment.

44

Ma Mouwen v. Wei Mouhong's Daughter Raising Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Ma Mouwen complained that the plaintiff and defendant met and fell in love while working outside. In March 2012, they held a wedding according to rural customs and lived together under the name of husband and wife. However, due to not reaching the legal age for marriage, they did not apply for marriage registration. In June 2012, the plaintiff and defendant gave birth to their daughter Ma Mouyao, who now lives together with the plaintiff. In December 2013, due to a marital conflict, the defendant ran away from home and did not return, without any contact with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has approached the defendant, but has not been found. The plaintiff and defendant do not have common property, nor do they have joint claims or debts. Due to the fact that the plaintiff and defendant did not register for divorce, and the defendant ran away from home, did not return, and their whereabouts were unknown, resulting in the inability of their daughter Ma Mouyao to settle down, the plaintiff hereby filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting an order to: 1. terminate the cohabitation relationship between the plaintiff and defendant; 2、 The daughter Ma Mouyao is raised by the plaintiff at their own expense.

（2） Judgment results

According to Article 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (1): "Men and women who have not registered their marriage in accordance with Article 8 of the Marriage Law and live together in the name of the husband and wife shall be treated differently if they file a lawsuit to the people's court for divorce: (1) The Regulations on the Administration of Marriage Registration issued by the Ministry of Civil Affairs on February 1, 1994 Before the announcement and implementation, if both parties have already met the substantive requirements of marriage, they shall be treated as de facto marriage; （2） After the promulgation and implementation of the "Regulations on the Administration of Marriage Registration" by the Ministry of Civil Affairs on February 1, 1994, if both men and women meet the substantive requirements of marriage, the people's court shall inform them to apply for marriage registration before accepting the case; If the marriage registration has not been completed, it shall be treated as the termination of the cohabitation relationship In this case, the plaintiff and defendant cohabited without registration on March 8, 2012 under the name of husband and wife, and have not yet completed their marriage registration. Therefore, they should be treated as cohabiting relationships. According to Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (2), "If a party files a lawsuit requesting the dissolution of their cohabitation relationship, the people's court shall not accept it. However, if the party's request for the dissolution of their cohabitation relationship falls under the provisions of Article 3, Article 32, and Article 64 of the Marriage Law, which stipulate that" a spouse cohabits with another person, "the people's court shall accept and terminate it in accordance with the law In this case, the cohabitation relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant does not belong to the situation where a spouse cohabits with another person, nor does it belong to the situation where the people's court forcibly orders the termination of the cohabitation relationship. However, according to legal regulations, cohabitation relationships are not protected by law.

Secondly, for children born out of wedlock during cohabitation, their legal rights and obligations shall be in accordance with the regulations for children born in wedlock. Daughter Ma Mouyao has always been raised by the plaintiff, and changing her living environment is significantly detrimental to her healthy growth. Moreover, the defendant's whereabouts are unknown. Therefore, raising daughter Ma Mouyao by the plaintiff is beneficial to her physical and mental health and ensures her legitimate rights and interests. The plaintiff's claim for raising their daughter Ma Chuyao at their own expense does not violate legal provisions, and the court supports it.

In summary, according to Article 5 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (1), Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (2), and Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation, the judgment is as follows:

The daughter Ma Mouyao, born to the plaintiff and defendant, is raised by the plaintiff Ma Zhongwen, while the defendant Wei Mouhong does not pay the maintenance fee.

（3） Typical significance

Factual marriage has actually existed in large numbers in China for a long time, and in rural areas, especially remote areas, it even accounts for a considerable proportion of local marriages. In response to this common phenomenon in the case, it is not only necessary to enhance the legal awareness of the parties involved, but also for legal workers to conduct more and more extensive legal publicity and education. At the same time, it is necessary to continuously promote the improvement of the marriage registration system, so that citizens, especially those in remote rural areas, realize from a ideological perspective that unregistered marriages are not protected by law, and the impact of this cohabitation relationship on their lives, Enable them to recognize the legal protection of their marriage relationship through marriage registration when considering marriage conclusion, provide legal protection for their post marriage life, and reduce the occurrence of similar situations in this case.

45

He Moujin v. Zhou Mouying's custody dispute case

（1） Basic facts of the case

He Moujin sued that the plaintiff's father He Mouping and the defendant Zhou Mouying got to know each other in August 2005. In December 2006, they held a wedding according to rural customs and lived together under the name of husband and wife. On August 1, 2007, the plaintiff gave birth and was named He Moujin. In August 2008, the defendant and the plaintiff's father, He Mouping, had a conflict and left home without returning, failing to fulfill their mother's responsibilities. It is now known that the defendant Zhou Mouying has returned to her hometown and become a new family, with good economic conditions. She requests a decree to pay 90000 yuan for 18 years of support.

Defendant Zhou Mouying argued that he currently earns a living by working and is unable to pay for support.

（2） Judgment results

After the trial, the People's Court of Huize County held that the defendant Zhou Mouying, as the biological mother of He Jin, had a legal obligation to support He Jin during his underage or inability to live independently. The court upheld the lawsuit filed by He Moujin requesting that Zhou Mouying, who is the biological mother, pay the maintenance fee. Based on the current living conditions of the plaintiff He Moujin, it is decided that from 2015 to 2025, the defendant Zhou Mouying shall pay the plaintiff He Moujin a one-time maintenance fee of 1800 yuan before December 31 each year.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of controversy in this case is whether refusing to fulfill the obligation of upbringing on the grounds of inability to do so should be supported? Parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children. If parents fail to fulfill their obligation to raise and educate their children, they have the right to demand that their parents pay support for their children who are underage or unable to live independently. This is a legal right and obligation, and also a fine tradition of the Chinese nation. No matter for any reason, one cannot refuse to fulfill the obligation of upbringing and will not receive support.

46

Lv and others v. Li and others in a dispute over the maintenance of four people

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiffs Li Mourong and Lv Mouzhen claimed that the defendants Li Mouyou and others were the sons of the plaintiff and his wife. In 2008, through mediation by the Shilong Village Committee of Wuxing Township, the two plaintiffs and the four defendants each paid 500 yuan in maintenance fees annually. Li Mourong and three of them paid the two plaintiffs' maintenance fees on schedule every year, but Li Moujin never paid the two plaintiffs' maintenance fees. The lawsuit now orders the four defendants to bear 500 yuan in maintenance fees each year, And jointly bear the cost of hospitalization for the plaintiff's illness; The defendant Li Moujin was ordered to make up for the expenses of 4000 yuan that have not been paid to support the second plaintiff for a total of 8 years from 2008 to 2015.

Defendant Li Xiangjin argued that the second plaintiff was unfair in the distribution of family property, clearly favoring the other three defendants, and instigating them to take away my belongings, interfering with the production and life of my family. As long as the second plaintiff does not obstruct the production and life of his family, he can support the second plaintiff and does not agree to make up for the previous support.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Huize County held that parents have an obligation to raise and educate their children; Children have the obligation to support their parents. Parents who are unable to work or have financial difficulties have the right to demand that their children pay alimony when their children do not fulfill their obligations. The second plaintiff claimed that the fourth defendant should bear the cost of hospitalization due to illness. As the second plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove his illness and hospitalization, the required hospitalization cost was uncertain, and the court did not support his claim. The second plaintiff claims to require the defendant Li Moujin to provide alimony from 2008 to 2015. As the second plaintiff only claimed alimony from this court in 2015, this court partially supports his claim. Based on this, it is decided that four defendants, Li Mourong, and Lv Mouzhen, shall each pay 500 yuan in annual alimony to the plaintiffs, Li Mourong, and Lv Mouzhen. Reject the other claims of the second plaintiff.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of controversy in this case is whether the refusal to fulfill maintenance obligations based on unfair distribution of property should be supported? Raising children to prevent aging, accumulating grain to prevent hunger, "children have the obligation to support and support their parents. Parents who are unable to work or have financial difficulties have the right to demand that their children pay alimony when their children do not fulfill their obligations. This is a right and obligation conferred by law, and it is also a fine tradition of the Chinese nation. No matter for any reason, one cannot refuse to fulfill their maintenance obligations and will not receive support.

47

Zhao Mouhua and Yang Mouliang Divorce Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In August 2009, the plaintiff and defendant met and freely fell in love. On March 1, 2010, the wedding was held according to local customs and cohabitation was carried out. On March 31, 2010, I went to the marriage registration authority to complete the marriage registration procedures and obtain a marriage certificate. After marriage, the relationship between husband and wife is average. On February 26, 2012, she gave birth to her eldest daughter Yang Jia; On December 24, 2014, she gave birth to her second daughter Yang Yi. The plaintiff and defendant made a fuss over household chores after marriage. The plaintiff has been residing at the plaintiff's parents' home since December 31, 2014. The defendant repeatedly called out to the plaintiff's parents' house, but the plaintiff did not follow them home. The plaintiff sued for divorce from the defendant; The legitimate children Yang Jia and Yang Yi are raised by the plaintiff; The joint property of the husband and wife, including a television set, shall belong to the plaintiff; The defendant is responsible for repaying the joint debt.

（2） Judgment results

In this case, the plaintiff and defendant are in a free love relationship with a good marital foundation and have two children (still young). The plaintiff and defendant should strengthen communication and exchange, overcome various difficulties in life, cherish their marital relationships, correctly handle their marital and family relationships, and jointly create harmonious family relationships to provide favorable conditions for the healthy growth of the children. According to Article 32 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment prohibits the plaintiff Zhao Mouhua from divorcing from the defendant Yang Mouliang.

（3） Typical significance

The only legal reason for granting divorce is that the marital relationship has indeed broken down. The determination of whether the marital relationship has indeed broken down should be based on the objective facts of the divorce dispute case. The "Several Specific Opinions on How to Determine the Rupture of Husband and Wife Relationships in People's Courts' Trial of Divorce Cases" stipulates that a comprehensive analysis should be conducted from aspects such as marital inheritance, post marital relationships, reasons for divorce, the current status of the marital relationship, and the possibility of reconciliation. In this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant are in a free love relationship with a good marital foundation. Although there is a quarrel between the two parties due to household chores after marriage, as long as both parties strengthen communication and exchange, overcome various difficulties in life, and cherish their marital relationship. On the other hand, the two children born to both parties are still young, which is conducive to the healthy growth of the child. Based on the actual situation in this case, there is still a possibility of reconciliation between the couple. Therefore, the court ruled that the plaintiff and the defendant The defendant and the defendant are not allowed to divorce.

48

Sun v. Tian Divorce Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In May 2010, Sun and Tian met through an introduction and registered their marriage at the Xiushan County Civil Affairs Bureau on July 30 of the same year. In August 2010, Sun discovered that the identity document provided by Tian when registering for marriage was false. After the incident, Tian left Sun and his whereabouts are still unknown. After marriage, both parties have no children, no common debts, and no common property. Later, Sun Moumou filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xiushan Tujia and Miao Autonomous County, requesting the court to legally divorce the plaintiff and defendant.

（2） Judgment results

After being tried by the judge, it was believed that emotions are the foundation of marriage. The plaintiff and defendant got married only two months after they met, and their marriage foundation was weak. They separated after living together for less than a month. The defendant's whereabouts are still unknown, and the plaintiff and defendant are unable to establish a marital relationship. Furthermore, the documents provided by the defendant during the marriage registration were all forged, and their true intention to marry remains to be discussed. The plaintiff's request for divorce should be supported by the court. According to Article 32 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, the plaintiff Sun and the defendant Tian were sentenced to divorce.

After the judgment was delivered, neither party filed an appeal, and the judgment has become legally effective.

（3） Typical significance

After forging identity information and registering marriage with others, when the party who provides true identity information requests to terminate the marriage relationship, the court shall approve their divorce. According to Article 9 of the Marriage Registration Regulations, the revocation of marriage registration is limited to one party's forced marriage, and the flaws in the marriage registration process are not within the scope of revocable registration. In this case, the plaintiff Sun sued the people's court for divorce after learning that the defendant Tian provided false identity information when applying for marriage registration. The people's court should accept the case as a divorce dispute; Defendant Tian ran away from home after the incident was exposed, and his whereabouts are still unknown. After the court announced and served the court summons, he still did not appear in court to participate in the lawsuit. Due to the lack of mediation foundation, the Xiushan Court terminated the marriage relationship between the original defendant in accordance with Article 32 (3) (5) of the Marriage Law.

49

Di Guixia v. Defendants Li Zhiming, Li Zhigang, Li Zhiqiang, and Li Yajie in the Case of Maintenance Dispute

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff and the four defendants have a mother child relationship. The plaintiff's husband passed away in 2012. Prior to November 21, 2013, the plaintiff had been living with their eldest son Li Zhiming and later with their daughter Li Yajie. Due to the plaintiff's loss of labor capacity and the need for care in daily life, the plaintiff requires each of the four defendants to pay a monthly alimony of 150 yuan. From April 2014 to May 2014, the plaintiff spent a total of 5985.73 yuan on medical expenses. Excluding the expenses reimbursed by medical insurance, the remaining 2985.73 yuan should be borne by each of the four defendants, totaling 746 yuan. It was also found that the plaintiff, Di Guixia, had contracted 0.27 yuan of land in the Huashu Village Committee of Huachuan County, and received a monthly rural subsistence allowance of 55 yuan. It was also found that the defendant Li Zhiqiang paid 500 yuan in medical expenses during the hospitalization of the plaintiff Di Guixia.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Huachuan County held that supporting the elderly is an obligation that every child should fulfill, and the four defendants have an obligation to support their mother. The plaintiff requested that each of the four defendants pay a monthly maintenance fee of 150 yuan, which meets the standard of annual living expenses for rural residents. This court should support it. The plaintiff's request that the four defendants jointly bear the remaining medical expenses after the initial treatment, excluding medical insurance reimbursement, also complies with legal provisions, and this hospital should support it. Regarding the plaintiff's claim that future medical expenses should be borne by the four defendants in equal shares, as the plaintiff's claim for medical expenses has not yet been incurred, this court does not support the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff may claim additional rights after the actual medical expenses incurred in the treatment. The judgment is as follows: Defendants Li Zhiming, Li Zhigang, Li Zhiqiang, and Li Yajie shall each pay the plaintiff Di Guixia a monthly alimony of 150 yuan starting from July 1, 2014, which shall be paid on the 30th of each month; Defendants Li Zhiming, Li Zhigang, Li Zhiqiang, and Li Yajie shall immediately pay the plaintiff Di Guixia the medical expenses of 2985.73 yuan within ten days after the effectiveness of this judgment. Defendants Li Zhiming, Li Zhigang, and Li Yajie shall each bear 746 yuan, while the defendant Li Zhiqiang shall bear 246 yuan (746-500 yuan).

（3） Typical significance

Respecting and respecting the elderly is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation. The Marriage Law of China clearly stipulates that children have the obligation to support and support their parents. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly also stipulates that caregivers should fulfill their obligations to provide for the elderly economically, care for their daily lives, and provide spiritual comfort. Some caregivers in rural areas have poor legal awareness and moral values, ignoring or even failing to fulfill their obligation to support the elderly. Therefore, it is necessary to vigorously promote this traditional virtue, form a good moral trend of respecting and supporting the elderly, and thoroughly eradicate the soil that breeds the phenomenon of not supporting the elderly.