[案情]

文某与马某于1997年结婚。婚后，文某在外做生意，马某在家料理家务。文某做生意赚了一些钱，生活条件日渐富裕，对马某越看越不顺眼，三天两头找碴儿打骂马某。2002年，文某提出离婚。马某考虑到两个孩子均已长大，夫妻之间有多年的感情，坚决不同意。文某为达到离婚目的，一再威胁马某，但均未使马某同意其离婚的要求。文某转而采取欺骗的手段。于是，他告诉马某，两人现在居住的房子要拆迁，如果两人离婚的话，政府将多给补偿金。马某信以为真，在文某的引诱下与马某签订了离婚协议。文某担心马某会看出破绽，所以签订离婚协议时非常草率，仅简单地表明夫妻双方自愿离婚，对有关问题未作约定。文某又托熟人找到婚姻登记机关的工作人员，在马某未到场的情况下为两人办理了离婚登记。离婚后，文某即独自搬到在市中心购买的新房子里，与情妇同居，对马某和两个孩子不闻不问。马某发现上当后，找到有关部门，要求撤销离婚登记，恢复其与文某的婚姻关系。

[焦点]

本案的焦点是通过欺诈手段骗取的离婚登记是否有效。对此，法院在处理本案中有两种不同的意见：一种意见认为，文某是通过欺诈的手段与马某达成的离婚协议，并在马某未到场的情况下，违反法律规定的程序，办理了离婚登记。因此，对文某与马某的离婚登记应当依法宣布其无效。另一种意见认为，虽然文某是通过欺诈的手段与马某达成的离婚协议，并在马某没到场的情况下办理了离婚登记，但当事人之间毕竟已经离婚，从法律上讲，当事人之间的婚姻关系已经解除。

我国《婚姻法》和《婚姻登记管理条例》规定，当事人之间协议离婚，应当具备以下三个条件：1.协议离婚必须是夫妻双方完全自愿。男女双方自愿离婚的，准予离婚。如果一方当事人以欺诈、胁迫等手段，在违背对方真实意愿的情况下与之达成离婚协议，经婚姻机关查实后，应当不予登记。2.当事人在离婚协议中已经对子女和财产等问题作出适当处理。婚姻登记机关查明双方确实是自愿并对子女和财产问题已有适当处理时，发给离婚证。离婚协议书应当写明双方当事人的离婚意思表示、子女抚养、夫妻一方生活困难的经济帮助、财产和债务处理等协议事项。如果当事人在离婚协议中，对子女的抚养以及财产的分割等问题未作适当处理，婚姻登记机关不能为其办理离婚登记。3.必须双方当事人亲自到婚姻登记机关办理离婚登记。当事人离婚的，必须双方亲自到一方户口所在地的婚姻登记管理机关申请离婚登记。离婚登记是当事人之间解除身份关系的行为，必须由当事人本人亲自办理，不能由他人代理。

在本案中，文某以欺骗的手段，在违背马某真实意愿的情况下与其达到离婚协议，违反了《婚姻法》的有关规定，离婚协议不具有法律效力;同时从《民法》的角度来看，马某是在违背其真实意思的情况下，与文某达成的离婚协议，属于无效的民事行为。在文某与马某的离婚协议中未对子女的抚养和财产分割等问题作出约定，不符合《婚姻法》对于协议离婚的要求;文某采取托熟人、走后门的办法，在马某未到场的情况下办理了离婚登记，违反了法定程序。因此，本案中文某与马某的离婚登记无效，应当依法予以撤销。

[Case]

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

[Focus]

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

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

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