搜索专业人员
推荐专业人员：
2023-08-09
{"zh":"最高人民法院12月4日公布婚姻家庭纠纷典型案例","en":"On December 4th, the Supreme People's Court announced typical cases of marriage and family disputes"}
“用公开促公正 建设核心价值”主题教育活动 婚姻家庭纠纷典型案例
目录
1、于某某诉高某某离婚后财产纠纷案
2、王某诉江某离婚案
3、张某诉郭甲、郭乙、郭丙赡养纠纷案
4、博小某诉博某抚养费案
5、郭某诉焦某变更抚养关系案
6、麻某某诉麻晓某抚养费纠纷案
7、李某诉孙某离婚后财产纠纷案
8、刘某诉刘甲、刘乙赡养费纠纷案
9、孙某某申请执行彭某某抚养费案
10、余某诉余某望抚养费纠纷案
11、贾某诉刘某赡养纠纷案
12、周某诉张某离婚后损害责任纠纷案
13、郭某起诉与吕某离婚案
14、韩某控告张某新遗弃案
15、刘某森诉李某梅离婚纠纷案
16、付小某诉付培强抚养费纠纷案
17、刘某某诉袁乙赡养纠纷
18、陈某琪与被告陈某明抚养费纠纷案
19、黎某某与被告资某祥等六人赡养纠纷案
20、陈某某与梁某某非婚生子女抚养纠纷案
21、何某某与蒋某某探望权纠纷案
22、翁某某故意伤害案
23、李某与杨某不当得利纠纷案
24、彭某某与李某某离婚纠纷案
25、杨某某诉汪某某变更抚养权案
26、王丽诉张伟同居析产一案
27、王鹏与徐丽丽彩礼返还案
28、孙丰杰与王玉萍离婚纠纷案
29、韩理诉杨延铭探望权纠纷
30、邢桂芝诉殷智刚占有物返还案
31、张某诉程某身体权纠纷案
32、刘平诉孔霄离婚纠纷案
33、陈长臻诉陈路程、徐磊、徐春艳赡养纠纷案
34、原告李泊霖、李宁诉被告李涛抚养费纠纷案
35、李某福诉李甲、李乙赡养费纠纷案
36、张某与蒋某婚姻家庭纠纷案
37、黄某某与张某某婚内扶养纠纷案
38、弟媳向“大伯子”索要儿子抚养费纠纷案案
39、原告汤某诉被告姜某离婚纠纷案
40、张老太与子女赡养纠纷案
41、朱绍昌诉朱正方、朱正德、朱立香赡养费纠纷案
42、冯某诉蔡某解除收养关系纠纷案
43、原告吕某诉被告许某离婚案
44、马某诉魏某子女抚养纠纷案
45、何某诉周某抚养纠纷案
46、吕发珍等二人诉李向有等四人赡养纠纷案
47、赵某与杨某离婚纠纷案
48、孙某某诉田某某离婚纠纷案
49、狄桂霞诉被告李志明、李志刚、李志强、李亚杰赡养纠纷案
一、
于某某诉高某某离婚后财产纠纷案
（一）基本案情
于某某与高某某于2001年11月11日登记结婚，婚后于2003年9月生育一子高某。因感情不和，双方于2009年9月2日在法院调解离婚。双方离婚时对于共同共有的位于北京市某小区59号房屋未予以分割，而是通过协议约定该房屋所有权在高某某付清贷款后归双方之子高某所有。2013年1月，于某某起诉至北京市东城区人民法院称：59号房屋贷款尚未还清，房屋产权亦未变更至高某名下，即还未实际赠与给高某，目前还处于于某某、高某某共有财产状态，故不计划再将该房屋属于自己的部分赠给高某，主张撤销之前的赠与行为，由法院依法分割59号房屋。
高某某则认为：离婚时双方已经将房屋协议赠与高某，正是因为于某某同意将房屋赠与高某，我才同意离婚协议中其他加重我义务的条款，例如在离婚后单独偿还夫妻共同债务4.5万元。我认为离婚已经对孩子造成巨大伤害，出于对未成年人的考虑，不应该支持于某某的诉讼请求。
（二）裁判结果
北京市东城区人民法院生效裁判认为：双方在婚姻关系存续期间均知悉59号房屋系夫妻共同财产，对于诉争房屋的处理，于某某与高某某早已达成约定，且该约定系双方在离婚时达成，即双方约定将59号房屋赠与其子是建立在双方夫妻身份关系解除的基础之上。在于某某与高某某离婚后，于某某不同意履行对诉争房屋的处理约定，并要求分割诉争房屋，其诉讼请求法律依据不足，亦有违诚信。故对于某某的诉讼请求，法院不予支持。
北京市东城区人民法院于2013年4月24日作出（2013）东民初字第02551号民事判决：驳回于某某的诉讼请求。宣判后，于某某向北京市第二中级人民法院提起上诉，北京市第二中级人民法院于2013年7月11日作出（2013）二中民终字第09734号判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。
（三）典型意义
本案中双方争议的焦点是在离婚协议中约定将夫妻共同共有的房产赠与未成年子女，离婚后一方在赠与房产变更登记之前是否有权予以撤销。在离婚协议中双方将共同财产赠与未成年子女的约定与解除婚姻关系、子女抚养、共同财产分割、共同债务清偿、离婚损害赔偿等内容互为前提、互为结果，构成了一个整体，是“一揽子”的解决方案。如果允许一方反悔，那么男女双方离婚协议的“整体性”将被破坏。在婚姻关系已经解除且不可逆的情况下如果允许当事人对于财产部分反悔将助长先离婚再恶意占有财产之有违诚实信用的行为，也不利于保护未成年子女的权益。因此，在离婚后一方欲根据《合同法》第一百八十六条第一款之规定单方撤销赠与时亦应取得双方合意，在未征得作为共同共有人的另一方同意的情况下，无权单方撤销赠与。
二、
王某诉江某离婚案
（一）基本案情
王某与江某系经人介绍相识并登记结婚，婚后无子女。由于双方相识时间短，相互了解较少，结婚较为仓促，感情基础薄弱。婚后由于江某酗酒，对原告有家庭暴力，经常因为生活琐事对原告拳脚相加。2009年，江某无缘无故将原告毒打一顿并致其离家出走。后王某提起离婚诉讼，要求判决： 1、解除双方的婚姻关系；2、江某给付精神损失费5万元；3、依法分割共同财产。该案诉讼费由江某承担。王某提供江某书写的协议书及相关证人证明在婚姻存续期间江某对其施加家庭暴力。
（二）裁判结果
北京市通州区人民法院认为：男女一方要求离婚的，可向法院提起诉讼，如感情确已破裂，应当准予离婚。该案中，双方均同意离婚，表明双方感情已彻底破裂，故对王某要求离婚的诉讼请求，法院予以准许。王某要求江某支付精神损害赔偿金的诉讼请求，因江某在婚姻存续期间，确实存在家庭暴力情形，法院予以支持，具体数额由法院依法予以酌定。为此，法院判决王某与江某离婚（财产分割略），并由江某支付王某精神损害赔偿金。
（三）典型意义
夫妻应当互敬互爱，和睦相处，但遗憾的是，夫妻之间实施暴力给其中一方造成人身伤害和精神痛苦的现象仍然存在，家庭暴力问题作为离婚案件的重要诱因，仍然在很大程度上影响着家庭的稳定与和谐。家庭暴力是指行为人以殴打、捆绑、残害、强行限制人身自由或者其他手段，给其家庭成员的身体、精神等方面造成一定伤害后果的行为。持续性、经常性的家庭暴力，构成虐待。根据北京法院对2013年度东城法院、丰台法院、通州法院结案的620件离婚案件抽样统计显示，涉家庭暴力类的离婚案件占选取离婚案件总数的9%，数量比例虽不高，但涉家暴案件大多矛盾激烈、调解率低、最终离异率高。我国婚姻法明确禁止家庭暴力，规定配偶一方对另一方实施家庭暴力，经调解无效的应准予离婚，因实施家庭暴力导致离婚的，无过错方在离婚时有权请求损害赔偿。正在全国人大审议中的《反家暴法》也通过规定了一系列制度安排，以期保护家庭中的弱势群体，对家庭暴力行为进行遏制。本案就是典型的因家庭暴力导致离婚的案件，人民法院依法支持无过错方的离婚请求和赔偿请求，对于家庭暴力这样违反法律和社会主义道德的行为，旗帜鲜明地给予否定性评价。
三、
张某诉郭甲、郭乙、郭丙赡养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
张某与其丈夫郭某共育有三个子女，即：长子郭甲，次子郭乙，小女儿郭丙。1985年4月25日，郭某与长子郭甲、次子郭乙签订了分家协议，就赡养问题做了如下约定：“1.长子郭甲扶养母亲，次子郭乙扶养父亲。2.父母在60岁以前，哥俩每人每月给零花钱5元，60岁以后每人每月给10元。”郭某于2010年8月去世后，次子郭乙对郭某进行了安葬，此后母亲张某独自生活。2014年10月14日，张某将三名子女起诉至北京市怀柔区人民法院，要求随次子郭乙生活，长子郭甲给付赡养费1000元，其他二子女给付赡养费各500元。医药费由三子女共同承担。
法庭审理过程中，长子郭甲称自己一直以来赡养母亲，并承担过高赡养费；次子郭乙称分家时约定母亲由长子郭甲扶养，父亲由自己扶养，自己已经按照约定赡养了父亲，并对父亲进行了安葬，无法接受再与长子郭甲承担同样的责任；小女儿郭丙称自己并未在赡养协议里载明有责任。
(二)判决结果
北京市怀柔区人民法院法院经审理认为，张某的长子郭甲和次子郭乙虽然于1985年签订了分家协议，两人也按照分家协议履行着各自的义务，但是并不能完全免除次子郭乙、小女儿郭丙对母亲的赡养义务。原告张某自己每月有1200元收入，并愿意由次子郭乙照顾，故判决原告张某随次子郭乙生活，长子郭甲每月给付赡养费300元，长子郭甲承担原告张某医药费的二分之一，次子郭乙、小女儿郭丙各负担医药费的四分之一。
(三)典型意义
我国《婚姻法》第二十一条第三款规定：“子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女给付赡养费的权利。”原告现已年迈，且体弱多病，丧失了劳动能力，确实需要子女赡养，其子女均有赡养原告的义务。
诚然，在多子女的家庭，在父母不反对的情况下，签订赡养协议分工赡养父母是合理合法的，法律上也是允许的。我国《老年人权益保障法》第二十条规定：“经老年人同意，赡养人之间可以就履行赡养义务签订协议。赡养协议的内容不得违反法律的规定和老年人的意愿。”但是，如果客观情况发生变化，比如某位子女明显没有能力赡养好父或母，如果父或母提出赡养要求，其他子女无法免除。这也是《婚姻法》第二十一条第三款规定的题中之义，因为赡养义务是强制性的法定义务。
现实中，很多子女之间签订赡养协议时，仍然有封建思想，尤其是农村地区，如“嫁出去的女，泼出去的水”、“出嫁女无赡养父母的义务”，女儿对父母的赡养义务被人为地免除。但从法律上讲，子女对父母均有赡养义务，女儿不论出嫁与否都与父母存在法律上的赡养关系，不因任何原因而免除。而对于赡养协议中免除次子郭乙对母亲的赡养义务，属于约定免除了次子郭乙对母亲的法定义务，应属无效约定。故对原告要求三子女均需履行赡养义务的诉讼请求应当支持。
就张某的居住和日常照料问题，张某表示愿意随次子郭乙生活，而次子郭乙也表示同意，尊重当事人的意见。就赡养费的数额和医药费负担比例问题，考虑到次子郭乙已经履行了对父亲全部的赡养义务，长子郭甲应当多承担赡养费，体现法律与人情兼顾，也能更好促进家庭关系的和谐。
四、
博小某诉博某抚养费案
（一）基本案情
原告博小某的法定代理人刘某与被告博某原系夫妻关系，于2011年1月26日生有一子博小某，即本案原告。原告法定代理人与被告于2011年4月26日在东城区民政局协议离婚，后于2011年6月8日复婚，2012年5月27日二人签订了夫妻分居协议，协议约定：分居期间原告由其母刘某抚养，被告每月给付抚养费1500元，于每月12日前支付，从第二个月开始抚养费逾期未转账，则赔偿违约金30000元/次。2012年6月至2012年10月被告每月给付原告抚养费1500元，2012年11月开始不再给付。2014年5月28日，原告法定代理人与被告经河北省涿州市人民法院判决离婚，判决原告随其母刘某共同生活，被告博某自2014年6月起每月给付原告抚养费1900元，至原告博小某18周岁止。后博小某将博某诉至北京市东城区人民法院，请求支付2012年12月至2014年5月间的抚养费，并依约支付违约金。
（二）裁判结果
北京市东城区人民法院经审理认为：父母对子女有抚养教育的义务，不直接抚养子女的一方应负担抚养费的一部或全部。负担费用的多少和期限的长短，由双方协议。父母不履行抚养义务时，未成年的子女有要求父母给付抚养费的权利。原告法定代理人刘某与被告博某在分居期间就子女抚养费问题已经达成协议，抚养费数额的约定是双方真实意思的表示，并未违反法律的强制性规定，被告理应按约定履行给付义务，故对于原告要求支付拖欠的抚养费的诉讼请求，本院予以支持；但因为抚养费的给付并非基于合同，故双方约定的违约金条款于法无据，对于原告要求赔偿违约金的诉讼请求本院不予支持。北京市东城区人民法院依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第二十一条第一、二款，判决如下：
一、本判决生效后七日内，被告博某补付原告博小某二Ｏ一二年十一月至二Ｏ一四年五月抚养费二万八千五百元整；
二、驳回原告博小某的其他诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
在本案中，原告的法定代理人与被告签订了夫妻分居协议，该协议约定婚生子由一方抚养，另一方每月给付抚养费，并约定了迟延履行要支付违约金的条款。抚养费的给付是基于身为父母的法定义务，而并非基于父母双方的协议，该协议可以且只能约定抚养费的数额，且该法定义务不能因父母双方的协议而免除。因此，公民法定义务的履行只能依据法律法规的约束，而不宜因公民之间约定的违约金条款而予以约束。抚养费设立的初衷是为了保护离婚后未成年人子女的合法权益，是以赋予未抚养一方法定义务的方式，努力使得未成年子女的生活恢复到其父母离婚前的状态。抚养费本质上是一种针对未成年人的保障，因此，抚养人不应以违约金的形式从子女的抚养费中获利。
五、
郭某诉焦某变更抚养关系案
（一）基本案情
郭某与焦某原系夫妻关系，2012年3月30日经法院调解离婚，确定婚生女焦小某（2009年2月28日出生）由焦某负责抚育，焦某现已再婚。后郭某以焦某对焦小某照顾不周、不配合其探望等为由，向法院提起诉讼，要求变更焦小某由自己抚养、焦某每月给付抚养费3000元至焦小某年满18周岁。
（二）裁判结果
在法院庭审过程中，经法庭征询焦小某意见，其表示愿意与妈妈一起居住生活。原审法院经审理后判决：一、婚生女焦小某自判决生效之日起变更由郭某抚养。二、焦某于判决生效后每月十日前给付婚生女焦小某抚养费八百元，至焦小某十八周岁止。三、焦某于判决生效后每个月最后一周的周六上午九时将焦小某从郭某处接走进行探望，于当日下午五时前将焦小某送回郭某处。四、驳回郭某之其他诉讼请求。
判决后，焦某不服，上诉至北京市第二中级人民法院，认为原审判决认定事实不清，证据不足，郭某在离婚时不要孩子，且不支付抚养费，没有尽到母亲的义务；焦小某现已上幼儿园，受到家人深情厚爱，原判变更抚养权不利于焦小某的身心健康；同时提出，一审法院曲解了焦小某的真实意思，其所陈述“愿意随妈妈一起生活”系指愿意随继母一起生活，而非亲生母亲郭某，故请求二审法院查清事实依法改判。郭某同意原判。
在二审法院审理中，法庭曾与焦小某见面交流，发现其就本案诉争问题，尚不具备足够的认知与表达能力。二审经审理认为焦某与郭某离婚时，有关子女抚养问题已于2012年3月经北京市朝阳区人民法院生效民事调解书确定。离婚后至今，双方亦依照此民事调解书执行。目前焦小某在焦某抚养下已经上幼儿园，平时也能够受到爷爷、奶奶照顾，生活环境比较稳定。现郭某与焦某抚养能力相当，其生活条件亦未明显优于焦某，且郭某未提供有力证据证明焦某在抚养焦小某期间存在不利于未成年人身心健康的法定情形，其所提交的焦小某被烫伤照片，亦不足以证明焦某在抚养焦小某过程中存在经常性的不当行为。因此，法院认为焦小某由焦某抚养更为适宜。父母双方离婚后，在短时间内变更抚养关系不利于维护焦小某相对稳定的生活环境，也会对其正常的生活和成长产生影响，故郭某的诉讼请求，法院不予支持。焦某所提上诉理由，法院予以支持。据此，二审法院终审判决：一、撤销原判决。二、驳回郭某之诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
二审经审查后认为，关于焦小某的抚养问题已经法院生效调解确定，至今不过1年余，双方抚养条件并未发生较大变化。且焦小某现已在幼儿园就学，生活学习环境已相对稳定，贸然变更不利于其维持稳定生活状态。在原审法院审理过程中，法院当庭征询了焦小某（年仅4岁）的意见，并将其作为变更抚养的理由之一，但焦某一方坚持认为法庭误读了焦小某的意思，其庭上所称“妈妈”指的是焦小某的继母而非其亲生母亲郭某。二审承办法官考虑如果简单改判此案，势必进一步激化双方矛盾，使焦小某的抚养探望问题失去对话基础，加深两家之间的矛盾。
为了确定原审法院征求焦小某意见是否合适，二审承办法官及合议庭成员在与焦小某见面交流后发现焦小某对于诉讼争议的问题完全不具备相应的理解和表达的能力。为了缓解双方矛盾，缓解郭某思念之情，在征得双方同意后，法官特意在法院花园内组织了一场法庭亲情探望，两个家庭的成员及焦小某在探望过程中尽享天伦之乐。在和谐的氛围中，法官借势开展劝导说服工作，最终郭某表示同意法院改判的结果，焦某也当面表示郭某可随时将焦小某接走探望，案件得以圆满解决。为了增强判决效果，法官在判决的本院认为部分单辟一段写道：“父爱与母爱对未成年人都是不可或缺的，法院希望焦某、郭某从保证未成年人健康成长出发，能够在原有离婚调解协议的基础上，妥善处理探望及抚养费问题，共同为焦小某营造融洽、和睦的氛围，创造良好的生活、学习环境。”
本案是一起当事人矛盾焦点集中在子女探望问题上的案件。虽然是离异家庭的子女，但是在感情的世界里，他们不应该有缺失。北京市第二中级人民法院在遵循有利于未成年人成长的基础上，尝试开展“法庭亲情探望”，探索因人因案而异的探望权行使形式。本案是通过该项举措成功促成纠纷化解的典型案例。法官征得双方当事人同意后，安排两个家庭在温馨平和的气氛里，对焦小某进行探望，并顺势进行辨法析理，引导当事人理性诉讼，最终促成双方达成一致意见，取得了良好的裁判效果。“法庭亲情探望”为不直接抚养子女的一方提供了与子女面对面沟通交流的机会，拉近了感情距离，有助于当事人从子女利益出发，合理解决纠纷，也有助于唤醒父母对子女的关爱，鼓励他们尽快走出离婚阴影，共同努力为子女创造一个和谐稳定的成长环境。
六、
麻某某诉麻晓某抚养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
麻某某的法定代理人李某与麻晓某原系夫妻关系，麻某某系双方婚生子。后双方于2011年12月1日离婚，离婚协议书中约定：双方婚生之子麻某某由女方抚养，男方每月10日前支付共计1500元人民币，抚养费每年根据情况酌情增加，麻某某在学习、医疗等各方面的开支双方共同承担。2013年2月15日至2月22日，麻某某因间歇性外斜视、双眼屈光不正到北京儿童医院住院治疗，共支出医疗费13422.02元。2010年、2012年麻某某参加北京某少儿围棋培训，共支出教育费11105元，2010年、2011年、2013年麻某某参加某学校学习辅导班，共支出教育费11105元。2013年，李某起诉至北京市昌平区人民法院，请求增加每月应当支付的抚养费，请求判令麻某支付麻某某的医疗费和教育培训费用。
（二）审理结果
关于子女生活费和教育费的协议或判决，不妨碍子女在必要时向父母任何一方提出超过协议或判决原定数额的合理要求。根据最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释（一）》第二十一条的规定“抚养费包括子女生活费、教育费、医疗费等费用”。但不应就此一概认为每月支付固定数额抚养费后，无需再支付医疗费。而应考虑抚养费、教育费、医疗费的支出的原因与具体数额，同时兼顾夫妻双方的利益公平。因此，我国规定的抚养费包含教育费、医疗费，应理解为抚养费包含基本的教育费与医疗费，而不应包含为孩子利益客观必须支出的较大数额的医疗与教育费用。
同时，为保护未成年人利益，促进未成年人身心的全面发展，法律适当鼓励未成年人根据个人天赋与爱好参与一定的课外辅导课程。本案中麻某某长期参加围棋辅导班，从父母婚姻关系存续期间持续到离婚之后，麻晓某在婚姻关系存续期间对此同意，离婚后知情但未明确表示反对。目前也缺乏证据证明围棋班与麻某某兴趣不符，并不属于过分的报班的情形，因而依法应予支持。
北京市昌平区人民法院作出（2013）昌民初字第8252号民事判决：一、麻晓某自二○一三年八月起每月十日前支付麻某某抚养费人民币二千五百元，至麻某某年满十八周岁止；二、麻晓某支付麻某某医疗费六千七百一十一元零一分，教育费五千五百五十二元五角，于本判决生效后十日内支付；三、驳回麻某某的其他诉讼请求。宣判后麻晓某提出上诉。北京市第一中级人民法院于2013年作出（2013）一中少民终字第13395号判决：驳回上诉，维持一审判决。
（三）典型意义
本案例案情简单、诉讼标的不大，但却涉及未成年人最基本的利益需求，体现了近年来物价上涨与未成年人抚养费理念、立法相对滞后之间的冲突。审判实践中，应着眼于未成年人的合理需求，既排斥奢侈性的抚养费请求，也避免过低的抚养费给付，遵循未成年人最大利益原则。因此，在每月支付的固定数额抚养费之外另行主张的大额子女抚养费用请求是否应予准许，首先应当考虑该请求是否符合未成年人的利益以及是否有相应的法律依据；其次，该请求是否属于因未成年人合理需求产生的支出，法律不鼓励超前的或者奢侈的抚养费需求；最后应考虑夫妻的经济能力与实际负担义务，相应费用若由一方负担是否会导致夫妻双方义务负担的不平衡。
七、
李某诉孙某离婚后财产纠纷案
（一）基本案情
孙某和李某原本是夫妻，两人于2004年因感情不和协议离婚，双方在协议中约定：婚生子孙小某离婚后由女方抚养，孙某定期给付李某抚养费和教育费；现住公房及房屋内所有物品归女方所有；现金、存款上双方不存在共同财产，离婚时互不干涉，不需再分割；男方经营的公司、所有的汽车等财产，离婚后属男方。2014年，李某在作为孙小某的法定代理人依据“离婚协议”要求孙某付抚养费时，发现孙某现住房是其与李某婚姻关系存续期间购买，孙某在离婚时对该房屋进行了隐瞒。故李某以此为由起诉到法院要求判决涉案房屋全部归自己所有。
被告孙某辩称，李某的起诉期早以超过两年的诉讼时效，而且当时双方因为感情不和，从2001年便已经开始分居。涉案的房屋是其在分居期间完全用个人的财产购买的，应属于个人财产。同时，离婚协议中的公房在离婚时已经取得完全产权，与公房相比，现住房在离婚时价值较小，而且购买此房也告诉过李某，故对于该房屋完全没有隐藏的动机和必要。况且，双方在离婚协议中明确约定“所有的汽车等财产，离婚后属男方”，自己的现住房理应属于个人财产，因此不同意李某的诉讼请求。
（二）裁判结果
北京市昌平区人民法院经过审理认为，涉案房屋系在双方婚姻关系存续期间购买，为夫妻共同财产，应当予以分割，判决房屋归孙某所有，孙某给付李某房屋折价款一百余万。判决后，孙某、李某均不服，向北京市第一中人民法院提起上诉。
北京市第一中人民法院经过审理认为，虽然双方在离婚协议中有“男方经营的公司，所有的汽车等财产，离婚后属男方”的约定，但在房产价值远大于汽车的常识背景下，以“等”字涵盖房屋，违背常理，故该房为双方婚姻关系存续期间购买，应属于双方共同财产。对于孙某所提的李某诉讼已过诉讼时效的上诉理由，因孙某未能提供证据证明李某在诉讼时效结束之前已经知道该套房屋的存在，故李某表示其作为孙小某的法定代理人在2014年起诉孙某给付抚养费的案件中才知道有该套房屋的解释较为合理。对于房屋的分割问题，原审法院参照李某提出的市场价格及周边地区房屋的市场价格酌情确定房屋的市场价格并无不妥，同时原审法院结合孙某隐匿财产存在过错、涉案房屋登记在孙某名下等因素，判决房屋归孙某所有，孙某给付李某折价款一百余万，并无不当。综上，北京市第一中人民法院最终驳回了两人的上诉，维持了原判。
（三）典型意义
随着社会的发展，传统从一而终的婚姻观念已经悄然发生改变，在法院最直接的体现便是受理离婚相关的案件越来越多。曾经如胶似漆的两人，若在分道扬镳的岔路口，也能不因感情的逝去而坦诚相待，无疑也算得上是美事一件。但是现实生活往往不同于童话小说，离婚中的双方似乎总要将感情失利的不快转移到对共同财产的锱铢必较。因此，法院在审理涉及财产分割的离婚案件中，对双方共同财产予以公平分割，无疑能更好平息双方因离婚带来的不快，促进双方好合好散。在调处涉嫌隐瞒夫妻共同财产案件时明察秋毫，既是对失信一方的惩罚，亦是对另一方合法权益的维护，无疑也对社会的安定和谐有莫大的促进。
《婚姻法》第四十七条明确规定，离婚时，一方隐藏、转移、变卖、毁损夫妻共同财产，或伪造债务企图侵占另一方财产的，分割夫妻共同财产时，对隐藏、转移、变卖、毁损夫妻共同财产或伪造债务的一方，可以少分或不分。离婚后，另一方发现有上述行为的，可以向人民法院提起诉讼，请求再次分割夫妻共同财产。本案中，在案证据能够证明孙某的现住房是其在与李某婚姻存续期间用夫妻共同财产购买的，而且其主张购买该房屋已经告知李某缺乏证据支持，因此法院将涉案房屋认定为夫妻共同财产，并依法进行了分割。同时，对于隐瞒财产的分割比例问题，需要法院依据过错大小、具体案情等综合认定，故本案中李某以孙某隐瞒夫妻共同财产存在错误为由，要求涉案房屋全部归自己所有的诉讼请求亦未得到支持。天下没有不透风的墙，在夫妻缘分走到尽头之时，双方还应坦诚相待，避免日后对簿公堂，为自己的不当行为买单，既得不偿失，也失了风度。
八、
刘某诉刘甲、刘乙赡养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2014年6月23日，77岁的刘某以自己身患多种疾病，经济困难，两名子女不履行赡养义务为由，诉至北京市西城区人民法院要求法院判令两名子女每人每月向其支付赡养费900元。在诉讼中，刘某的两名子女认可刘某医疗费支出的事实，但认为刘某有医疗保险，且其退休金足够支付医疗及生活费用，不同意刘某的诉讼请求。刘某自认其每月收入4000余元，刘某长子刘甲自认其每月税后工资收入为6500元，刘某长女刘乙主张自己无收入。
（二）裁判结果
北京市西城区人民法院经审理认为，赡养父母是子女应尽的义务，在父母年老时，子女应当履行对老年人经济上供养、生活上照料和精神上慰藉的义务，子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。原告刘某起诉要求二子女负担赡养费的诉讼请求并无不当，但同时，刘某的赡养费用应与其日常生活水平相适应并应考虑子女的收入情况。
根据庭审中查明的事实，刘某长子刘甲有收入来源，刘某长女刘乙虽主张自己没有工作，但结合其年龄适合工作的事实，其没有工作并不能成为其拒绝履行赡养义务的抗辩理由，最终判决两名子女每人每月分别支付刘某赡养费800元、500元。
（三）典型意义
不少子女面对老人赡养诉讼请求提出各种各样的理由，但多数拒绝理由没有法律依据，如有的子女以父母有足够的收入、享受有医疗保险为理由不支付赡养费；有的子女以父母离异后长期未与一方父母共同生活为由不愿意履行赡养义务；有的多子女家庭中子女之间因经济条件差异或老年人在处分财产时偏心相互推诿。这些理由都将难以被法院认可。此外，法院在审理赡养纠纷时将酌情考量被赡养人的身体情况、日常生活水平、当地消费水平、赡养人是否可以正常工作等情况对赡养费数额予以酌定。尤其在存在多名赡养人的情况，因为经济条件不同，将可能承担不同金额的赡养费。
九、
孙某某申请执行彭某某抚养费案
（一）基本案情
申请人孙某某与被执行人彭某某经人介绍于2001年9月登记结婚，婚后于2007年8月生一子彭小某。后因生活琐事及性格差异导致双方发生矛盾，夫妻感情破裂。2013年彭某某起诉要求离婚，婚生子由其抚养。后经北京市通州区人民法院判决准许二人离婚，婚生子由孙某某抚养，自2013年12月起彭某某每月给付孩子抚养费一千元，于每月二十五日前付清，至彭小某满十八周岁止。判决生效后，被执行人彭某某未按照判决指定的期间履行给付抚养费的义务。2015年6月通州法院受理孙某某申请执行彭某某抚养费纠纷一案，申请人孙某某申请法院执行2014年11月至2015年5月的抚养费共计7000元。
（二）执行情况
北京市通州区人民法院立案后，电话联系被执行人彭某某，告知孙某某申请执行孩子抚养费一事，并要求被执行人彭某某给付孩子的抚养费。但是，被执行人彭某某坚称其是彭某某的弟弟，执行法官遂请求其转告彭某某履行给付抚养费的义务，其表示可以尝试联系彭某某。其后，执行法官又多次联系彭某某，但彭某某仍声称不是本人，而是彭某某的弟弟。执行法官询问为何彭某某的电话一直在其弟弟身上，彭某某声称那是单位的业务电话，彭某某不在北京回老家了，由其负责彭某某的业务。彭某某何时回京自己并不清楚，执行法官又询问彭某某有无其他联系方式，彭某某告知没有其他联系方式。经查，彭某某当时银行账户无存款。
后来，执行法官通知申请人到法院并告知了上述情况。申请人孙某某表示对方就是彭某某，彭某某也有工作，只是其不愿意给付抚养费。执行法官又当即联系了彭某某，但其仍声称其并非彭某某。听到电话声音后，孙某某当即表示对方即是被执行人彭某某，彭小某也表示对方即是其父亲彭某某。并且指出彭某某的弟弟住在农村，不会说普通话，当即拆穿了彭某某的谎言。执行法官告知彭某某，如拒不履行生效判决，给付抚养费，法院将依法将其纳入失信被执行人名单，并视情将追究其刑事责任。但是，被执行人仍未主动履行给付抚养费的义务。通州区法院遂依法将被执行人彭某某纳入失信被执行人名单，并将其银行账户全部冻结。后经执行法官查询，被执行人又在工商银行信用卡中心开设一张信用卡，执行法官又将该账户冻结。后来，被执行人彭某某在信用卡中存入现金，执行法官依法强制扣划了案款，该案现已执行完毕。
（三）典型意义
本案是被执行人有给付孩子抚养费的能力而拒不履行法院生效判决，拒不给付未成年子女抚养费的案件。并且被执行人还采取编造谎言欺骗法官的方式拒不履行生效判决所确定的义务，严重缺乏社会诚信。《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第二十一条规定：父母对子女有抚养教育的义务；父母不履行抚养义务时，未成年的或不能独立生活的子女，有要求父母给付抚养费的权利。彭某某作为彭小某的生父，对彭小某有抚养的义务，此种义务并不会因父母离婚而受影响。离婚后，父母对于子女仍有抚养和教育的权利和义务。根据《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十七条第一款的规定，离婚后，一方抚养的子女，另一方应负担必要的生活费和教育费的一部或全部。就本案来说，法院作出的生效判决也明确彭某某每月二十五日前应给付彭小某抚养费一千元，直至彭小某满十八周岁时止。但是，彭某某并未主动履行法院生效判决所确定的义务，不仅对其亲生儿子彭小某不闻不问，还拒绝给付孩子抚养费，未能尽到一个父亲应尽的义务。在法院立案执行后，彭某某虽有履行能力却拒不履行给付抚养费的义务，还编造谎言逃避法院的执行。这种行为不仅没有尽到一个父亲应尽的法律义务，也背离了中华民族尊老爱幼的传统美德。被执行人不仅未主动履行给付孩子抚养费的义务，还编造谎言逃避法院执行的行为是严重缺乏社会诚信的表现。人无信不立，诚信是为人处事的基本准则，也是中华民族的传统美德。现代社会是一个讲究诚信的社会，一个缺乏诚信的人不可能得到他人的尊重和社会的认同。目前，我国正大力推进社会信用体系建设，加大对被执行人的信用惩戒。未来，诚信可走遍天下，失信将会寸步难行。
十、
余某诉余某望抚养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告余某的母亲和父亲2008年经调解离婚，双方达成调解协议，余某由母亲抚养，其父亲余某望当庭一次性给付抚养费23000元。2013年余某在某双语实验学校上小学二年级，年学费3600元，其母亲无固定收入，主要收入来源为打工。后余某诉至河南省驻马店市确山县人民法院请求其父余某望每月给付抚养费1000元，到2023年6月30日其满18岁止。
（二）裁判结果
根据《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十七条规定，关于子女生活费和教育费的协议或判决，不妨碍子女在必要时向父母任何一方提出超过协议或判决原定的数额的合理要求。最高人民法院《关于人民法院审理离婚案件处理子女抚养费问题的若干具体意见》第十八条规定，原定抚育费数额不足以维持当地实际生活水平的，子女可以要求增加抚育费。本案中原告余某父母离婚时间是2008年，当时双方协议余某父亲当庭一次性给子女付抚养费23000元，平均每月62.5元。而2012年度河南省农村居民人均生活消费支出为5032.14元，平均每月419元。根据上述情况，余某父亲原来给付的抚养费目前显然不足以维持当地实际生活水平，因此驻马店市确山县人民法院判决支持了原告余某要求增加抚养费的请求。
（三）典型意义
世界许多国家和地区的婚姻家庭法立法时都遵循“儿童利益优先原则”和“儿童最大利益原则”，目前，我国的《婚姻法》和《未成年人保护法》也明确规定了保护妇女、儿童合法权益的原则。“未成年人利益优先原则”和“未成年人最大利益原则”应当成为我国婚姻家事立法的基本原则，尽可能预防和减少由于父母的离婚，给未成年子女带来的生活环境上的影响及未成年子女性格养成、思想变化、学习成长等不利因素。
在婚姻家庭类案件中,人民法院在对未成年子女的抚养费进行判决、调解时,抚养费标准一般是依据当时当地的社会平均生活水平而确定。但随着经济的发展，生活水平的提高及物价上涨等因素,法院原先所判决、调解的抚养费的基础已经不存在或发生很大改变，再依据当时的条件和标准支付抚养费，已经不能满足未成年人基本的生活要求，不能保障未成年子女正常的生活和学习。因此,法律和司法解释规定未成年子女有权基于法定情形，向抚养义务人要求增加抚养费。本案正是基于最大限度保障未成年子女利益的考量，在原审调解书已经发生法律效力的情况下，准予未成年子女余某向人民法院提起新的诉讼，依法支持其请求其父增加抚养费的主张。该判决契合了我们中华民族尊老爱幼的传统家庭美德教育，符合社会主义核心价值观的要求。
十一、
贾某诉刘某赡养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告贾某76岁，年事已高，体弱多病，且生活不能自理。2012年至2013年间，贾某因病住院仅治疗费就花了30多万元。贾某一生生育四子三女，其中三个儿子和三个女儿都比较孝顺，但三子刘某多年来未尽任何赡养义务。贾某某住医院期间，三个儿子和三个女儿都积极筹钱，一起分担医疗费。而三子刘某不仅对母亲病情不管不问，还不愿分担任何医疗费用。虽经村干部多次调解，但刘某均躲避不见。贾某无奈之下，走上法庭提起诉讼，请求判令其子刘某支付赡养费、承担已花去的医疗费，并分摊以后每年的医疗和护理费用。
（二）裁判结果
河南省商丘市虞城县人民法院公开开庭审理了本案，并依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第二十一条第三款“子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。”《中华人民共和国老年人权益保障法》第十四条“赡养人应当履行对老年人经济上供养、生活上照料和精神上慰藉的义务，照顾老年人的特殊需要。赡养人是指老年人的子女以及其他依法负有赡养义务的人。赡养人的配偶应当协助赡养人履行赡养义务。”第十五条第一款“赡养人应当使患病的老年人及时得到治疗和护理；对经济困难的老年人，应当提供医疗费用。”第十九条第二款“赡养人不履行赡养义务，老年人有要求赡养人付给赡养费等权利”的规定，判决支持贾某的诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
赡养老人是回报养育之恩，是中华民族的传统美德，更是子女对父母应尽的法定义务。子女不仅要赡养父母，而且要尊敬父母，关心父母，在家庭生活中的各方面给予积极扶助。不得以放弃继承权或者其他理由，拒绝履行赡养义务。子女不履行赡养义务，父母有要求子女给付赡养费、医疗费的权利。当父母年老、体弱、病残时，子女更应妥善加以照顾，使他们在感情上、精神上得到慰藉，安度晚年。本案的被告刘某作为原告七个子女中的赡养义务人之一，无论从道义上、伦理上还是从法律上都应对母亲履行赡养义务，在老母亲年老体弱且患有疾病的情况下，被告应当与其他兄弟姊妹一起共同承担赡养义务，使老母亲能够安度晚年、幸福生活，而被告有能力履行赡养义务却三番五次推诿履行，并公开放言不管不顾老母亲，在当地造成恶劣影响，引起民愤。法院在确认双方关系和事实前提下，依法判令被告履行赡养义务，彰显了法治权威，同时也维护了道德风尚。
十二、
周某诉张某离婚后损害责任纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2003年原告周某与被告张某登记结婚，婚后生育一女一子。2013年7月，张某提起与周某离婚之诉，经法院主持调解离婚，调解书主要内容为，双方自愿离婚，张某一次性给付周某某人民币38000元，双方互不再追究。而2013年5月，张某与案外某女生育一女。周某诉称离婚后才发现此事，现起诉要求张某赔偿精神损害赔偿金3万元。
（二）裁判结果
河南省滑县人民法院经审理认为，依据《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第四条规定：“夫妻应当互相忠实，互相尊重；家庭成员间应当敬老爱幼，互相帮助，维护平等、和睦、文明的婚姻家庭关系”；第四十六条规定，导致离婚的，无过错方有权请求损害赔偿；最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法若干问题的解释》第二十八条婚姻法第四十六条规定的“损害赔偿”，包括物质损害赔偿和精神损害赔偿。被告张某在与原告婚姻关系存续期间，与他人有不正当男女关系的行为，并生育一女，导致离婚，应该承担相应的民事赔偿责任，应当支持原告提出损害赔偿请求，即判令被告张某给付原告周某精神损害赔偿人民币15000元。宣判后，双方均未提出上诉。
（三）典型意义
夫妻互相忠实，不仅是传统美德，也是法定义务。对婚姻不忠实，是难以容忍的不诚信，它不仅破坏了夫妻关系，拆散了家庭，也伤及无辜的子女，而且败坏了社会风气，是法律所禁止的行为。因此，在离婚后发现被告的婚姻存续期间的出轨行为，请求精神损害赔偿，人民法院依法予以支持，以彰显法律的公正和道德力量。
十三、
郭某起诉与吕某离婚案
（一）基本案情
原告郭某起诉与被告吕某离婚，并以双方没有共同生活过为由请求返还彩礼21200元，被告吕某承认原告郭某所述是事实，同意离婚，但以自己是原告郭某明媒正娶的妻子为由不同意返还彩礼，河南省嵩县人民法院经过开庭审理判决双方离婚、被告返还原告彩礼14840元。
原告诉称：自己与被告吕某于2009年8月份经人介绍相识，因双方都到了结婚年龄，在双方父母和媒人的操持下，二人便匆匆订立婚约。两人凑合了一年多后于2011年3月7日登记结婚，于2011年3月12日举行结婚仪式。在此时间段内，男方郭某共计给付女方吕某彩礼金21200元。因双方没有夫妻感情，并且从相识到现在没有共同生活过，现起诉离婚，同时要求被告返还彩礼金21200元。
被告辩称：自己与原告郭某没有共同生活是事实，但是自己是原告郭某明媒正娶的妻子，因此同意离婚不同意返还彩礼。
法院经审理查明：原告郭某与被告吕某于2009年8月份经人介绍相识，于2011年3月7日登记结婚，于2011年3月12日举行结婚仪式。从双方相识到结婚这段时间内，被告吕某共接收原告郭某彩礼金21200元。另查明：双方相识四年来，确实未共同生活过。
（二）裁判结果
嵩县人民法院于二〇一四年六月九日做出（2014）嵩民五初字第22号民事判决书，判决如下：一、准予原告郭某与被告吕某离婚；二、被告吕某于本判决书生效后十日内返还原告郭某彩礼14840元；三、被告吕某的个人财产三组合皮革沙发1套（单人沙发1个、双人沙发1个、长沙发1个）、26英寸海信牌液晶彩色电视机1台、茶几1个、棉被4床、毛毯3条、太空被1床、单子16条归被告吕某所有；四、驳回原告郭某的其它诉讼请求。判决作出后，双方当事人均没有上诉。
（三）典型意义
有关彩礼与嫁妆如何返还的案件，在我国广大地区特别是农村男女离婚案件中具有一定的普遍意义。依习俗通称，彩礼是婚前男方家庭送给女方的一份礼金或财产，嫁妆是女方带给婆家的物品或钱财的总和。在传统习俗看来，没有彩礼与嫁妆，婚姻难以成立、难讲合法。有人从经济关系分析说彩礼和嫁妆是亲家之间为了建立长久的婚姻关系而采取的物质相互交换，又有人说彩礼是买卖婚姻的筹码，并使神圣的婚姻变得铜臭。彩礼与嫁妆极易导致畸形“金钱婚姻”观，败坏社会风气。彩礼飚升，嫁妆攀比，这已不仅是一个重大的社会问题，而且也是一个值得研究的法律问题。
关于彩礼返还问题，最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国婚姻法》若干问题的解释（二）中有明确规定：“当事人请求返还按照风俗给付的彩礼的，如果查明属于以下情形，人民法院应予支持：（一）双方未办理结婚登记手续的；（二）双方办理结婚登记手续但却未共同生活的；（三）婚前给付导致给付人生活困难的。”
本案适用前款第（二）项的规定，即“双方办理结婚登记手续但确未共同生活”，返还彩礼应当以双方离婚为条件，本案的审理结果也依照上述规定。另外，男方只拿回了一万四千多元钱，是因为彩礼应返还多少尚没有明确法律条文进行详细规定，一般是根据双方婚姻维持时间长短，还有双方的过错确定。
十四、
韩某控告张某新遗弃案
（一）基本案情
韩某系韩某伍与刘某婚生子，智障残疾人，生活不能自理。2009年10月，韩某伍与刘某离婚，韩某由刘某抚养。2013年8月刘某与张某新结婚，韩某随二人共同生活。2014年2月26日，张某新私自将韩某送上北京的客车，韩某在北京流浪，直至2014年3月13日被家人找回。2014年4月，刘某与张某新离婚。2015年1月5日韩某以张某新犯遗弃罪提出控告，并要求赔偿经济损失。
（二）裁判结果
河南省滑县人民法院在审理过程中认为，韩某虽已成年，但因系智障残疾人，系不完全民事行为能力人，需要监护。张某新作为其继父，与其共同生活，形成事实上的抚养关系，具有法定的扶养监护义务，张某新不履行法定监护义务，私自将韩某送走，让其脱离监护人监护流离失所，其行为已构成遗弃罪。针对自诉案件的特殊性，法院针对该案事实进行了调解，张某新认识到自己的犯罪行为，最终双方和解，自诉人撤回自诉。
（三）典型意义
本案是涉及成年智障人的监护问题及继父母子女的监护关系。本案中，韩某虽已成年，但有证据证明其系智障人，应视为不完全民事行为能力人，需要被监护与扶养。继父母子女共同生活，形成事实上的扶养关系，继父母对子女不进行扶养，或继承子女对父母不进行扶养均应承担相应的法律责任。本案中，作为继父的张某新逃避对继子应尽的扶养义务，将其遗弃，虽之后其与刘某离婚，与韩某亦自动解除的扶养关系，但并不因此否定其在扶养关系存续期间的特定义务。其行为已构成遗弃罪，应受到法律的追究。事后韩某有幸被找回，得到了较好的扶养。该案在审理过程中，张某新认识到自己的犯罪行为，主动要求调解，赔偿被害人的经济损失，韩某的法定监护人考虑到案件的特殊性，接受调解，最终以调解结案，案结事了。这一起案件让我们意识到对特殊人员除了家庭的保护与监护外，社会亦有所保障。
十五、
刘某森诉李某梅离婚纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告刘某森与被告李某梅的父亲原在一个单位工作，二人关系很好。1976年原、被告经人介绍相识，并于1980年登记结婚，于1981年12月生有一子（现已成年成家）。原、被告在三十多年的共同生活期间，曾为家庭生活琐事吵架生气，因双方沟通不畅，处理矛盾不当，为此影响了原告对被告的感情，特别是被告对原告及原告父母的冷淡，促使矛盾更加激化，原告为此曾于2012年7月2日向河南省焦作市解放区人民法院提起离婚诉讼，法院于2013年8月8日作出判决，不准原、被告离婚。2014年6月12日原告第二次向法院提起离婚诉讼。
（二）裁判结果
焦作市解放区人民法院认为，30余年相识、相守实属不易，双方感情基础良好，应珍惜多年来建立起来的感情和家庭，在今后的生活中，各自克服和改正自身存在的问题，互相体谅和关心对方，多做有利于夫妻和好的事，少说不利于家庭和睦的话。尤其是被告如能克服待人冷淡、不善沟通、脾气冲动的问题，在生活上对原告多些关心和照顾、多些体贴和理解，原告如能念及与被告多年的夫妻情份，念及对已故老人们的承诺，念及对子孙后代的影响，共同努力，克服当前婚姻家庭中出现的困难，双方还是具有重归于好的可能的。据此，法院裁判不准原告刘某森与被告李某梅离婚。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。
（三）典型意义
本案是老年离婚的典型案件。近年来，老年离婚案件数量逐渐增多，若夫妻感情确已破裂、符合《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十二条的相关规定，可判离婚，但“少时夫妻老来伴”，在年轻的感情逐渐淡去之时，老年夫妻之间所谓的感情更多的是对一份承诺的信守和由此演变而来的符合公序良俗的家庭责任和社会担当。老年婚姻关系的解除，不能简单等同于一般离婚案件，其产生的影响牵涉至其子女、甚至于孙子女在内的多个家庭，人民法院依法裁判，具有积极的导向异议，在审理老年离婚案件时，应认识到老年夫妻之间已经过数十年的磨合，实属不易，双方如能念及多年的夫妻情份，念及对自身对家庭应有的责任，共同努力，双方还是具有重归于好的可能的，从而更加慎重的审核老年夫妻离婚案件，如此才能更好的维护社会稳定、提高社会幸福指数。
十六、
付小某诉付某某抚养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告付小某的母亲韩某某与被告付某某于2012年12月7日结婚，于2013年9月18日生育一子付小某。韩某某住院生育原告付小某的医疗费用由被告付某某支付。自原告出生后，其母亲韩某某即带其离开单独居住至今，被告付培某某未支付过原告抚养费。被告付某某现无固定收入。
原告付小某诉称，2012年8月份韩某某与被告付某某认识，韩某某系再婚，于2012年11月7日登记结婚，自韩某某怀孕后，无工作无经济来源，被告付某某对其不管不问也不给生活费，孩子出生后，被告付培强不尽丈夫及父亲的义务，韩某某自己带着孩子艰难生活。故原告诉至河南省郑州市惠济区人民法院，要求被告每月支付抚养费1500元，自2013年9月份开始支付，每半年支付一次，并承担本案诉讼费。
被告辩称：原告所诉不是事实，被告不但给原告买衣服，每月还支付生活费，一直对原告尽抚养义务，原告母亲韩某某私自带原告离家出走，致使被告不能经常见到原告，对原告成长及身心健康极为不利；原告要求被告每月支付1500元抚养费的诉讼请求缺乏事实和法律依据，被告现无工作，在家务农，没有固定收入和经济来源，如原告母亲养不起原告，被告愿意自己承担抚养原告的义务，并不要求原告母亲承担抚养义务；如原告不同意被告直接抚养原告，被告愿意按照河南省农村生活标准支付抚养费。
（二）裁判结果
郑州市惠济区人民法院于2014年3月19日作出（2014）惠少民初字第1号民事判决；被告付某某于本判决生效后十日内按照每月人民币400元的标准一次性支付原告付小某自2013年10月份至判决生效之日的抚养费；被告付某某于本判决生效后按照每月人民币400元的标准支付原告的抚养费十八周岁；驳回原告付小某过高部分的诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
未成年子女要求支付抚养费，基本上都是在夫妻双方离婚时或离婚后才产生的，而在婚姻存续期间，由于夫妻双方财产为共有财产，是否能要求不尽抚养义务的一方支付抚养费，这是本案争议的要点。《婚姻法》解释（三）第三条对此作出了明确规定：婚姻关系存续期间，父母双方或者一方拒不履行抚养子女义务，未成年或者不能独立生活的子女请求支付抚养费的，人民法院应予支持。
另外，《关于人民法院审理离婚案件处理子女抚养问题的若干具体意见》第七条规定：“子女抚育费的数额，可根据子女的实际需要、父母双方的负担能力和当地的实际生活水平确定。”“有固定收入的，抚育费一般可按其月总收入的百分之二十至三十的比例给付。负担两个以上子女抚育费的，比例可适当提高，但一般不得超过月总收入的百分之五十”。这是最高院对法院审理离婚时或增加抚养费案件的指导意见，这条指导意见也同样适用处理婚姻关系存续期间的抚养费案件。同时，在子女抚育费数额的具体确定上，还要根据子女正常生活的实际需要，应能维持其衣、食、住、行、学、医的正常需求，并需要综合考虑父母双方的经济收入、费用支出、现有生活负担、履行义务的可能性和社会地位等因素，最终做出公平合理的判决。
十七、
刘某某诉袁乙赡养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告刘某某称，原告与丈夫袁某某结婚后，生育有长子袁甲（已病故）、次子袁乙、女儿袁丙。现原告身患脑梗、冠心病、高血脂、2型糖尿病、高血压极高危组等多种疾病，需要花大量的医药费及请护工护理，除二儿子袁乙对原告尽赡养义务外，被告袁丙对原告不管不问，未尽到女儿的赡养义务，为此诉至法院，要求依法判令：1、被告支付原告2011年3月28日至判决生效之前已经产生的医疗费、护理费约18732.7元的三分之一即6275.45元；2、被告承担原告于2011年12月4日至2012年2月22日期间产生的医疗费、住院费、护工费等费用13130.22的三分之一即4376.74元；3、被告承担本案宣判以后至原告死亡之前的生活费、医疗费、护理费等与原告相关的费用的三分之一（医疗费以医院和药店开具的正式发票为准，护理费以同时期三家家政护理公司出具的报价之和平均值为准）；4、本案诉讼费由被告承担。
被告辩称，原告起诉被告不是其真实意思表示，被告已实际履行作为女儿对母亲的赡养义务，而原告之子袁乙从工作至今，对父母分文未花，本次起诉是袁乙一手包办。原告有医保，其本可以在医保定点单位郑州市三院治疗，而非要自费到河南省中医院二附院康复科治疗，自付费用每天高达上千元，且反复住院、出院已达半年，造成不必要的费用支出，被告对此无赡养能力。原告有稳定的退休工资，房产两处，无论是每月收入，还是用房产担保贷款或变卖一处房产，都可支付医疗费用。而原告却把其中一套房产赠给了原告儿子袁乙，原告可以将给儿子的房产卖了支付医疗费用，而被告没有支付医疗费、护理费的能力。被告作为女儿应当对父母尽赡养义务，对原告方的合理合情合法的要求，被告方予以认可，但是不符合实际情况的费用，被告不愿意承担。
（二）裁判结果
河南省郑州市惠济区人民法院于2012年6月19日作出（2012）惠民一初字第197号民事判决书，判决：一、被告袁丙于本判决生效后十日内支付原告刘跃兵医疗费7392.4元及护理费1662元；二、被告袁丙承担本案宣判以后至原告刘跃兵死亡之前的医疗费、护理费的三分之一（医疗费以医院的正式发票为准，护理费以同时期河南省服务行业平均工资计算）。宣判后，双方均未上诉，该民事判决书已于2012年7月25日生效。
（三）典型意义
法律规定子女有对父母赡养扶助的义务，父母经济困难时有权利要求子女支付赡养费，这里包括基本医疗支出。但这不是说，父母经济水平良好时，子女就不需赡养父母了，赡养义务是不能附加任何条件的，子女不得以任何理由拒绝履行赡养义务。在本案中，原告虽有退休金和医疗保险，但原告患有大量的疾病，这些费用不能满足原告需要的医疗支出，而女儿不愿赡养原告的理由是原告有两套房产，因原告把其中一套房产给了儿子，而没有给女儿，所以被告就说如果原告把其中一套房产抵押贷款或者变卖，原告的医疗费用就不成问题了，而被告也不需要再支出费用了。原告说儿子家庭比较困难，女儿对原告帮助儿子有意见，本不想让女儿出钱，但现在的病情严重，费用比较高，想让女儿承担一些医疗费用，女儿家庭也比较富裕，有能力承担一部分，于是只要求女儿支出医疗费的三分之一。
在物欲横流的现代社会，人们会为了利益不惜舍弃亲情。天下父母之爱最无私，而子女对父母之爱最吝啬，认为父母的所作所为都是应当的，当财产分配不均时会为此反目成仇。大多数赡养案件都是因为父母对财产分配不均或子女认为父母对哪个子女偏心引起的。写这个案例，就是要告诉大家，赡养父母是法定义务，是不附加任何条件的。
十八、
陈某琪与被告陈某明抚养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告陈某琪（系未成年人）诉称，其母陈某芳与被告陈某明于2008年经衡阳县人民法院调解离婚，协议约定原告陈某琪由母亲陈某芳抚养，被告陈某明自当年起每年支付抚养费3000元至小孩独立生活时止。2009年原告之母陈某芳患精神病死亡。自此，原告一直随外祖父母生活，被告陈某明自2009年开始一直未支付抚养费。原告即将面临高中教育，原来离婚协议约定被告每年支付3000元抚养费已远远不能满足原告生活和学习需要，故请求依法判令被告陈某明向原告陈某琪支付拖欠2009年至2014年的抚养费18000元，自2015年至2019年每年按7000元支付抚养费。
（二）裁判结果
经湖南省衡阳县人民法院调解，原被告双方自愿达成如下协议：被告陈某明自愿按照每年7000元的标准支付原告陈某琪2015年9月至2018年7月高中三年及陈某琪2018年7月高中毕业后至2019年9月共计四年的学习、生活费等日常开支共计28000元；本案受理费经本院院长批准予以免交。
（三）典型意义
该案在审理过程中始终体现了保护未成年人合法权益这个宗旨：一是司法救助。在立案阶段即报请院长审批免交诉讼费，对追索抚养费的原告予以司法救助。二是注重调解。对该类案件注重调解，更有利于为未成年人营造一个良好的成长环境。三是维护亲情。原告之母因病去世，原告仍随外祖父母生活。承办法官在办理该案过程中，始终注重维系亲情，绝不能因为官司使双方反目成仇，亲情沦丧。希望原告在失去母爱后，被告能给原告多一份关爱，多一份责任。原告外祖父母在其负担能力范围内尽一份对外孙的抚养义务，共同抚养未成年的原告茁壮成长。同时向原告说明原告向被告追索抚养费是其权利，但是原告应多体谅父亲的难处，被告在还有2个小孩需抚养的情况下，仍然同意增加支付抚养费，已经是尽力而为了，平时要多注重与父亲沟通，增进父女感情。该案调解结案后，原被告都很满意，原告所在村组、学校也反映良好。
十九、
黎某某与被告资某祥等六人赡养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告黎某某已年过八旬，共生育了被告资某祥等6个子女。原告老伴去世后，6个子女因原告的赡养问题相互推诿，不能达成一致意见，致使原告老无所依，经家族亲属等调解均无法解决矛盾。原告无奈之下，一纸诉状将自己的6个子女告上法庭，要求6个子女承担赡养义务。
（二）裁判结果
湖南省衡阳县人民法院判决被告资某祥等6人每人每月给付原告黎某某赡养费200元（支付方式：每月5日前支付本月赡养费）；原告黎某某的医疗费按实际支出由六被告均等负担。
（三）典型意义
古语说“养儿防老”，原告好不容易将6个子女抚养成人，却不料晚年落到如此境地，着实让人心寒。我国法律规定，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。6名被告作为原告的子女，应当履行赡养义务，照顾老年人的晚年生活。现原告年迈多病，丧失劳动能力，现有经济状况无法维持其基本生活需要，其子女应当承担相应的赡养义务。
二十、
陈某某与梁某某子女抚养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告陈某某与被告梁某某于2009年经他人介绍建立恋爱关系后，在未办理结婚登记的情况下，便以夫妻名义同居生活，于2010年11月6日生育男孩陈某乐。此后，原告陈某某常年在外打工，自小孩出生起至2014年3月，小孩随被告梁某某及原告陈某某的父母共同生活。2014年3月，原、被告因感情不和，自行解除了同居关系。此后，原告陈某某仍在外地工作，被告梁某某在耒阳市区工作，该期间小孩随原告陈某某的父母生活，被告梁某某探望了小孩，小孩的学费由原告陈某某的父母与被告梁某某共同负担。自2015年3月起，小孩一直随被告梁某某生活。
（二）裁判结果
原、被告未办理结婚登记手续，以夫妻名义同居生活的行为属同居关系，不受法律保护。根据相关法律规定，非婚生子女享有与婚生子女同等的权利。不直接抚养非婚生子女的生父或生母，应当负担子女的生活和教育费等，直至小孩能独立生活时止。本案中，陈某乐系原、被告的非婚生小孩，在原、被告同居关系期间，该小孩随原告父母和被告共同生活，原、被告解除同居关系后，小孩虽随原告父母共同生活了一段时间，但该期间原告一直在外打工，被告在耒阳市区工作，亦对小孩履行了抚养义务。综合考虑原、被告双方的实际情况，小孩随被告生活，由原告每月给付抚养费600元，能更好融洽父母子女间的亲情关系，也有利于小孩的健康成长。综上所述，湖南省耒阳市人民法院依法判决原告陈某某与被告梁某某的非婚生小孩陈某乐（男，2010年11月6日生）随被告梁某某生活，由原告陈某某每月给付抚养费600元至小孩能独立生活时止，小孩成年后，随父随母由其自择。
（三）典型意义
父母对子女均有抚养的权利和义务，关于子女的抚养问题，应坚持有利于子女身心健康、保障子女合法权益的基本原则，只有在此前提下，再结合父母双方的抚养能力和抚养条件等具体情况妥善解决。
二十一、
何某某与蒋某某探望权纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2010年8月24日，原告何某某、被告蒋某某经法院判决离婚，婚生小孩何某珈由被告蒋某某抚养，原告何某某每月给付小孩抚养费450元，直至小孩十八周岁止。判决生效后，原告每月现金支付小孩抚养费。后来因为原告未给付小孩抚养费被告申请法院强制执行，华容县人民法院执行局作出裁定要求原告每月打款进被告账户给付抚养费，从2010年11月份至起诉时止共计47张银行存款凭证。2013年10月2日被告把小孩住院医药发票给原告，要求给付相应费用而没有给付后，被告就没有让原告探望小孩至今。另外，原告于2012年2月29日和2013年3月30日分别支付900元和310元小孩医疗费用。另查明，何某珈于2010年3月9日生，现在校读书。
（二）裁判结果
湖南省华容县人民法院依法判决原告何某某每月最后一个周末探望婚生儿子何某珈一次直至成年，被告蒋某某应予协助。
（三）典型意义
夫妻离婚后，不直接抚养子女的一方，有探望子女的权利，另一方应予协助配合。本案中被告因小孩住院期间原告父亲去医院探望小孩没有买东西，以及原告没有马上给付小孩医疗费用而不给原告探望小孩，是不利于小孩身心健康成长的。原、被告虽已离婚，但是无法隔断父母双方与子女之间的血缘关系和情感纽带，父亲在儿子的成长过程中有着无可替代的重要地位和作用，被告不能因为原、被告双方家庭之间的矛盾影响到原告的合法权益和小孩的健康成长。法院希望双方在今后探望小孩问题上本着互谅互让、有利于小孩身心健康成长为准则，遇事多克制、协商。法院考虑从既不影响小孩现有正常生活和学习，又增加儿子与父亲的沟通交流，既维护原告的合法权益又有利于小孩身心健康成长的目的出发，酌情做出上述判决。
二十二、
翁某某故意伤害案
（一）基本案情
被告人翁某某与被害人胡某系夫妻关系，但胡某与杨某长期保持不正当关系且长期对翁某某实施家暴。案发当日晚上，胡某带着杨某回到家中，与翁某某发生口角。胡某拿出一个拖把追打翁某，后又换用衣架继续殴打。翁某某随手拿起玻璃酒柜上的一把水果刀防御。双方对打中，翁某某右手所持的水果刀刺中胡某的左侧胸部，致胡某经医院抢救无效后死亡。
（二）裁判结果
湖南省平江县人民法院一审认为，被告人翁某某故意伤害他人身体，致人死亡，其行为已构成故意伤害罪。翁某在自身遭受不法侵害时持刀防卫，并在该过程中将他人伤害导致死亡，属防卫过当。案发后，翁某某请人报警并积极救治被害人，并能如实供述自己的犯罪事实，属自首。本案系婚姻家庭问题引发，被告人在案发后取得了被害人家属的谅解，且被害人在本案的起因上存在较大过错，可以对翁某某酌情从轻处罚。遂依法判决被告人翁某某有期徒刑三年，缓刑五年。
（三）典型意义
本案是涉及家庭暴力引发刑事犯罪的典型案件。此类案件普遍呈现被害人有较大过错，被告人的行为对社会危害性较小，再犯的可能性不大等特点。本案对被告人实行宽严相济的刑事政策，不但能够起到刑罚预防犯罪的作用，也有助于化解社会矛盾，最大限度实现案件裁判的法律效果和社会效果的有机统一。
二十三、
李某与杨某不当得利纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告李某与丈夫宋某某于1998年4月10日登记结婚，婚后共同创办公司并经营。2011年5月，宋某通过朋友介绍与被告杨某发展为情人关系，原告李某一直蒙在鼓里。 2011年11月8日，宋某为履行对杨某的承诺，通过招商银行将66万转账到杨某账号上，原告李某发现后，多次找杨某索要未果，故向法院起诉。原告李某起诉认为，其丈夫宋某背着自己私自将66万元钱支付给与其有不正当关系的被告杨某，不仅违反了相关法律规定，也违背了公序良俗和社会道德，被告杨某应返还其取得财产并承担本案的诉讼费用。诉讼中，被告杨某经合法传唤，未到庭参加诉讼。
（二）裁判结果
湖南省南县人民法院审理认为：夫或妻非因日常生活需要对夫妻共同财产作出的重要处理决定，夫妻双方应当平等协商，取得一致意见。宋某背着妻子将66万元的现金支付给情人，违背了公序良俗和社会道德，违反了《婚姻法》的规定，其行为应认定为无效，被告杨某所得66万元款项没有合法依据，取得了不当利益，造成了原告的损失，属不当得利，依法应予返还。为此，法院依法判决由被告杨某将66万元现金返还给原告李某。
（三）典型意义
本案是因婚外情导致的不当得利纠纷，因现实生活中有类似情况的出现，故本案的处理引起了广泛的关注。法律明确规定，夫或妻在处理夫妻共同财产上的权利是平等的。因日常生活需要而处理夫妻共同财产的，任何一方均有权决定。夫或妻非因日常生活需要对夫妻共同财产做重要处理决定，夫妻双方应当平等协商，取得一致意见。他人有理由相信其为夫妻双方共同意思表示的，另一方不得以不同意或不知道为由对抗善意第三人。本案例中，杨某接受宋某赠与的财产并没有付出相应的对价，因此不属于有偿取得，不能适用善意取得制度。另一方面因该66万元数额巨大，且并非日常生活需要，宋某无权单独处理，其无偿赠与杨某的行为损害了李某的合法权益，有违公平原则。并且原告丈夫与情人的关系与我国提倡的社会主义道德是相违背的，违反了公序良俗，是不受法律保护的。因此，宋某的赠与行为应认定为无效，李某作为财产所有人和利害关系人有权要求杨某全部返还。
二十四、
彭某某与李某某离婚纠纷案
（一）基本案情
1939年11月出生的彭某某与1957年5月出生的李某某均系再婚家庭，各自均有子女。2008年11月经媒人介绍相识，2009年1月15日在邵阳市双清区民政局办理了结婚登记，婚后未生育子女。因被告与原告方的家庭成员相处不融洽，夫妻双方经常发生争吵。2015年正月初二，双方发生矛盾后双方分居。原告以夫妻感情彻底破裂为由，向人民法院提起诉讼，请求人民法院判决离婚。
（二）裁判结果
邵阳市双清区人民法院依法判决准予原告彭某某与被告李某某离婚。
（三）典型意义
原、被告系再婚家庭，双方感情基础薄弱，婚后没有建立起真正的夫妻感情。双方因感情不和已分居至今，说明原、被告夫妻感情确已破裂，无和好可能。本案中，原、被告均有自己的各自的家庭，双方均没有很好地融入家庭中，矛盾时常发生。当然，双方离婚跟各自的子女沟通不够有关。法官提醒老年人，找老伴要多与自己的子女沟通。为人子女也要站在老年人的角度，多关心自己父母，不仅是物质上，更要有精神上的,让他们有一个幸福的晚年。
二十五、
杨某某诉汪某某变更抚养权纠纷案
（一）基本案情
出生于2008年2月的女童婷婷在母亲杨某某与父亲汪某某分开后，随父亲汪某某及祖父母一起生活。后汪某某与吴某某登记结婚，婚后又生育一子。此后，汪某某和婷婷的祖父母长年在外打工，家中只留吴某某照料两个幼童的生活起居。因为不满汪某某对自己和孩子的不闻不问，吴某某便对不认真做作业、吃饭磨蹭的婷婷心生怨恨，把怒气发泄在婷婷身上，多次对婷婷实施殴打，直至前不久婷婷的伤情被老师发现，引起社会的关注。婷婷的亲身母亲杨某某不忍女儿受伤害，在法律援助中心的帮助下，向法院提起诉讼要求变更抚养权。
（二）裁判结果
宝应法院受理此案后，在县妇联、村妇联的参与、配合下，充分调查了双方当事人的家庭情况，了解到原告杨某某结婚后生育了两个小孩，最大的小孩只有三岁，目前没有工作，全靠丈夫一人的收入维持家庭生活开支，虽坚持要求婷婷的抚养权，实则力不从心。被告汪某某在责怪吴某某殴打婷婷的同时，也深刻反省了自己在此次事件中的过错，但希望婷婷仍然随自己生活。调解过程中，汪某某、吴某某共同承诺一定善待女儿，保证她健康成长。婷婷本人也愿意仍然随汪某某夫妻生活。在全面分析双方当事人抚养能力和经济条件的情况下，在征求双方当事人及其亲属的意见，并得到吴某某的真诚忏悔和书面承诺的情况下，最终确定婷婷仍随汪某某生活。
（三）典型意义
本案源于吴某某对婷婷的家庭暴力引发，案件处理过程中，杨某某还向宝应法院提起刑事自诉，诉请以虐待罪追究吴某某的刑事责任。为了避免双方加重对立情绪，承办法官多次与双方沟通，最终促成杨某某撤回自诉，不再追究吴某某的刑事责任，共同努力让婷婷生活在一个和谐的环境中。
二十六、
王丽诉张伟同居析产案
（一）基本案情
原告王丽与被告张伟于2001年起以夫妻名义同居生活，无子女。2002年1月24日，被告张伟以个人名义用3万元的价格购得弓长岭区安平街某小区10#楼3单元6层1号住宅楼1处。原、被告为购置该房屋在耿某处借款13，000.00元，上述借款已由原、被告偿还完毕。另查，原、被告用于同居生活在耿某处借款2000.00元、在赵某处借款8000.00元。
（二）裁判结果
辽宁省辽阳市弓长岭区人民法院经审理认为，同居关系是指男女双方未经结婚登记而具有较稳定的长期共同生活关系。原、被告未办理结婚登记而以夫妻名义同居生活，同居期间双方共同所得的收入和购置的财产，按一般共有财产处理；解除同居关系时，同居期间为共同生产生活而形成的债权、债务，可按共同债权、债务处理。
依照最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国婚姻法》若干问题的解释（二）第一条第二款、最高人民法院《关于人民法院审理未办结婚登记而以夫妻名义同居生活的若干意见》第十条、第十一条之规定，判决如下：
一、坐落于弓长岭区安平街某小区住宅楼10#楼3单元6层1号房屋归被告张伟所有，被告张伟于本判决生效后十五日内给付原告王丽所占房屋份额折价款51，069.20元；
二、原、被告同居期间的债务10000.00元（赵某8000.00元、耿某2000.00元），原、被告各负担5000.00元，双方互负连带清偿责任；
三、驳回原告其他诉讼请求。
案件受理费300.00元、评估费6000.00元，由原、被告各负担3150.00元。
（三）典型意义
近年来，涉及解除同居关系以及分割财产的案件越趋复杂，在很多情况下，同居关系与婚姻关系非常接近，除了两张纸（结婚证），几乎没有区别。然而，在起诉同居析产的情况下，同居关系的处理与婚姻关系有着不小的区别。经过结婚登记的夫妻在婚姻关系存续期间，一方或双方所得的财产，除《婚姻法》第十八条列举的财产以外，均为夫妻共有财产，夫或妻对共有财产享有平等的处分权。同居关系析产则是以财产取得方式确定产权，共同财产未经共有人同意不得处分。其行为模式不同，后果模式也不相同。同居关系和家庭关系都是整个社会的小细胞，处理好同居关系对和谐社会的建设有着十分重要的意义。
二十七、
王鹏与徐丽丽彩礼返还案
（一）基本案情
原告王鹏和被告徐丽丽经人介绍于2010年农历十一月十九日订婚，订婚时被告向原告索要彩礼款10万元。订婚当天被告收到彩礼款1万元，小相钱2,000.00元，装烟钱2,000.00元。2011年3月16日原、被告办理了结婚登记手续，同年农历二月十六日原、被告举行婚礼后在原告父亲住房的西屋居住生活。结婚前10天左右被告又收到彩礼款9万元。在原、被告结婚前原告父亲又购买豪爵银豹牌二轮摩托车一台（现在被告父母家保管，价值为2，000.00元），其他家电、家俱等由原告父母购买（现在原告家保管）。原、被告结婚后先期夫妻感情尚可。尔后因琐事原、被告曾经口角打架。2012年10月原、被告用被告收到的彩礼款购买了五菱荣光牌微型面包车一台（现由原告保管）。2013年10月双方发生发生口角后，被告回娘家与原告分居至今。原告为结婚向他人借款11万元至今未偿还。
（二）裁判结果
辽宁省西丰县人民法院经审理认为：原告王鹏和被告徐丽丽经人介绍相处仅两个月有余便登记结婚。由于婚前双方相互了解不够，婚后在日常生活中又未建立起真挚的夫妻感情，在共同生活期间曾因琐事而口角打架，于2013年10月双方分居至今。分居后经原、被告亲属和法庭做调解和好工作，已无和好可能，其夫妻感情确已破裂。原告的离婚请求应予支持。对在原、被告订婚时被告向原告索要彩礼的行为，已违反了我国婚姻法关于借婚姻索取财物的规定，且造成了原告家庭生活困难。因此对被告索要的彩礼款10万元应酌情予以返还。但考虑原、被告已用彩礼款购买了面包车，并由原告使用和管理的实际情况可判决该车归原告所有。对原告父亲在原、被告结婚前购买的摩托车应认定为原告婚前财产，被告也应返还给原告。故判决如下：准予原告王鹏和被告徐丽丽离婚；原、被告用彩礼款所购买的五菱荣光牌微型面包车一台归原告所有；被告自判决生效后10日内返给原告豪爵银豹牌二轮摩托车一台（现值2，000.00元）。
（三）典型意义
近年来，离婚时索要婚前给付彩礼的案件频见报端，甚至有索要不成而故意杀人的悲剧发生。处理好此类案件，对于创造良好的人际关系，维护和谐稳定的社会秩序有着重要的意义。对此最高人民法院的司法解释有明确规定。
最高人民法院《关于适用中华人民共和国婚姻法若干问题的解释二》第十条规定：“当事人请求返还按照习俗给付的彩礼的，如果查明属于以下情形，人民法院应当予以支持：（一）双方未办理结婚登记手续的；（二）双方办理结婚登记手续但确未共同生活的；（三）婚前给付并导致给付人生活困难的。适用前款第（二）、（三）项的规定，应当以双方离婚为条件。”那么如何理解“生活困难”呢？《解释（二）》第二十七条对“生活困难”的含义作出了这样的解释：“ 婚姻法第四十二条所称‘生活困难’，是指依靠个人财产和离婚时分得的财产无法维持当地基本生活水平。”
二十八、
孙丰杰与王玉萍离婚纠纷案
（一）基本案情
孙丰杰于2014年5月6日向辽宁省辽河人民法院起诉称：孙丰杰与王玉萍于1992年经人介绍相识，1993年8月15日登记结婚，1994年6月生育女儿孙宁男。婚后由于双方性格不合，在共同生活中经常吵架，甚至相互动手。从2007年3月起双方分居至今。2011年女儿高考前夕，双方签订了离婚协议书和离婚协议书补充条款，但因种种原因没有办理离婚登记。之后王玉萍拖延办理离婚手续，无奈孙丰杰于2012年10月、2013年7月两次到法院诉讼要求离婚，后因需要搜集证据而撤诉。现孙丰杰第三次起诉要求与王玉萍离婚。王玉萍答辩称双方感情没有完全破裂，不同意离婚。经法院查明的事实为：孙丰杰与王玉萍经人介绍相识，于1993年8月15日登记结婚，婚后感情很好，1994年6月生育女儿孙宁男。后因双方性格差异较大，在共同生活中产生矛盾，现因感情不和分居四年。孙丰杰与王玉萍于2011年5月29日就离婚问题达成“离婚协议书补充条款”。孙丰杰于2012年10月、2013年7月两次到法院诉讼要求离婚，后以夫妻感情破裂证据不足为由撤诉。2014年5月6日孙丰杰第三次起诉要求与王玉萍离婚。
（二）裁判结果
辽宁省辽河人民法院审理认为：孙丰杰与王玉萍虽然结婚多年，但因性格差异较大，在共同生活期间产生矛盾，致使双方因感情不和分居四年之久，能够认定双方夫妻感情确已破裂。故孙丰杰要求与王玉萍离婚的诉讼请求，符合法律规定，予以支持。宣判后，王玉萍不服一审判决，提出上诉。辽宁省辽河中级人民法院经依法审理认为：孙丰杰与王玉萍依法登记并生育子女，但因性格差异较大，在共同生活期间逐渐产生矛盾。自2012年起孙丰杰多次起诉要求离婚，虽撤诉，但夫妻感情状况并未因此好转。通过孙丰杰给王玉萍留便条、发短信的行为，可以看出孙丰杰与王玉萍日常已经很少当面接触，结合双方曾协议离婚、孙宁男的证言，可以确定双方因感情不和分居已达四年之久。二审期间本院试图调解双方和好，但孙丰杰坚持要求离婚，可以看出双方夫妻感情确已破裂，故判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
（三）典型意义
离婚诉讼中如何判断“感情确已破裂”成为本案审理的关键。《中华人民共和国婚姻法》（以下简称“ 《婚姻法》”）第三十二条第二款、将“感情确已破裂”作为离婚的法定理由，该条第三款列举应准予离婚的五种情形。可见 《婚姻法》采用这种概括与列举相结合的立法模式，使离婚的法定理由具有可操作性。本案中，从婚后感情来看，双方性格差异较大，在共同生活期间矛盾较多，因此二人的感情生活受到很大影响，并逐年恶化。从夫妻关系的现状来看，双方因感情不和已分居四年，且该期间很少接触。这符合 《婚姻法》第三十二条第三款列举的应准予离婚的五种情形中的“双方因感情不和分居两年”规定。从孙丰杰的离婚决心来看，孙丰杰已经是第三次向法院提出离婚诉讼，且一审、二审试图调解和好，均失败，可见其离婚决心。综合以上因素，可以认定孙丰杰与王玉萍感情确已破裂，已无和好可能，应当准予离婚。
二十九、
韩理诉杨延铭探望权纠纷案
（一）基本案情
韩理与杨延铭于2014年12月1日离婚，婚生女孩杨雨涵（2011年12月1日出生）归杨延铭抚养，韩理每月支付抚养费1000元。现韩理以杨延铭不让看望孩子为由，于2015年3月11日起诉来院。
（二）裁判结果
原审法院判决韩理每周探视婚生女儿杨雨涵一次。每次探视的时间限于周五下午17时韩理亲自将孩子从杨延铭处接走，次日晚17时前韩理将孩子送回，杨延铭应予以协助。杨延铭诉要求改判每个月探视两次，且不能过夜。沈阳中院经审理认为：韩理作为杨雨涵的母亲，有探望孩子的权利，杨延铭具有协助的义务，原审确认的韩理探望子女时间，符合法律规定，予以维持。关于杨延铭提出因民族信仰不适宜被接走、韩理不能保证孩子安全、韩理工作性质不能保证陪孩子时间等上诉理由，因未能提供证据加以证明，缺乏事实及法律依据，不予支持。杨延铭提出必须按时给付抚养费才能探望孩子的上诉理由，因抚养费已经生效判决认定，与本案并非同一法律关系，本案不予处理。杨延铭的该项上诉理由，不能得到支持。判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
（三）典型意义
《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十八条规定，离婚后，不直接抚养子女的父或母，有探望子女的权利，另一方有协助的义务。行使探望权利的方式、时间由当事人协议；协议不成时，由人民法院判决。父或母探望子女，不利于子女身心健康的，由人民法院依法中止探望的权利；中止的事由消失后，应当恢复探望的权利。离婚后不直接抚养孩子的一方具有探望孩子的法定的权利，另一方不应以先行给付抚养费等理由加以干涉、阻挠。离婚后的双方应当本着有利于孩子身心健康的原则，对子女探望、教育等事项进行协商解决，为孩子营造和谐的成长环境。
三十、
邢桂芝诉殷智刚占有物返还案
（一）基本案情
原告邢桂芝与案外人殷树田系夫妻关系。婚后，案外人殷树田于1980年12月7日购买了座落于丹东市振兴区浪头镇文安村徐家屯村民组建筑面积为55平方米的砖石结构三间房屋（房产证编号为振农房字第159号）。1985年5月9日，殷树田死亡。涉案房屋由邢桂芝与殷树田之子殷会金暂时居住。2012年1月23日，殷会金死亡。同年，殷会金之子殷智刚在未经原告同意的情况下，搬到涉案房屋居住。原告诉至法院，要求被告腾退涉案房屋。
（二）裁判结果
法院审理后认为，涉案房屋系原告邢桂芝与案外人殷树田婚后购买，应视为夫妻共同财产。案外人殷树田死亡后，原告作为共有人享有对该房屋占有使用的权利。现被告殷智刚未经原告同意，即占有使用该房屋，侵害了原告的合法权益，应当承担相应的民事责任。故对原告要求被告立即倒出并返还涉案房屋的诉讼主张，本院予以支持。关于被告提出的涉案房屋已由案外人殷树田卖给其父殷会金的辩论意见，因涉案房屋系原告与案外人殷树田夫妻共同共有，殷树田在未经原告同意及事后追认的情况下，单方处置该房屋的行为应为无效，且被告提供的房屋买卖协议书的日期与案外人殷树田死亡日期明显存在矛盾，与事实不符，故对该意见，本院不予采纳。关于被告提出其对涉案房屋享有继承权的辩论意见，虽在案外人殷树田死亡后，属于殷树田的房屋产权份额发生继承，但被告殷智刚仅享有继承权，并未实际取得对涉案房屋占有使用的权利，故对该辩论意见，本院亦不予采纳。对于被告提出的对涉案房屋享有继承份额，被告可另案主张该权利，本案不一并处理。依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第六十四条第一款、《中华人民共和国民法通则》第五条、《中华人民共和国物权法》第二百四十五条第一款之规定，判决：被告殷智刚于判决生效后立即倒出座落于丹东市振兴区浪头镇文安村徐家屯村民组建筑面积为55平方米的砖石结构三间房屋（房产证编号为振农房字第159号），并返还给原告邢桂芝。
（三）典型意义
随着我国社会主义经济的发展，《物权法》对公民的保护显得尤为重大。本案虽是占有物返还纠纷，但涉及的问题主要在于占有回复请求权的构成。占有回复请求权，指占有被侵夺的，占有人有权请求侵夺人及其继受人回复其占有，返还占有物。构成要件有四：1、占有被侵夺。侵夺，指违背占有人的意思，以法律禁止的私力剥夺占有；2、请求权人须为占有被剥夺的占有人。3、被请求人为占有的侵夺人及其继受人。须注意两点：侵夺人须仍为现在占有之人。否则，若侵夺人不再是现在占有之人，则对侵夺人无占有回复请求权。4、须自侵夺之日起一年内行使（一年期满未行使的，占有回复请求权消灭）。占有回复请求权使得占有脱离本权获得独立保护，其法律意旨有三：1、通过保护占有，保护占有背后（以占有为内容的）物权；2、通过保护占有，保护占有背后的债权（因债权人不能享有物权请求权）；3、维护社会平和即物的归属秩序，禁止任何人以法律禁止的私人力量擅自剥夺他人的占有。公民的合法的民事权益受法律保护，任何组织和个人不得侵犯。占有的不动产被侵占的，占有人有权请求返还原物。
三十一、
张某诉程某身体权纠纷案
（一）基本案情
张某（女）和程某（男）于2005年登记结婚， 2008年5月26曰，程某因家庭琐事对张某实施家庭暴力，致张某身体多处受伤，经托克托县医院及内蒙古医学院附属医院诊断为头面部闭合伤、鼻骨骨折、鼻根部骨质缺失、左眼部损伤、双侧膝关节下损伤等综合症状。
为此，张某于2008年8月5曰以程某犯故意伤害罪为由向托克托县人民法院提起刑事自诉，同时提出刑事附带民事诉讼请求，该院于2008年11月6日作出(2008)托刑初字第59号刑事附带民事判决，判决：一、程某犯故意伤害罪，免予刑事处罚；二、程某赔偿张某医疗费2541.1元、法医检查费300元、鉴定费300元、交通费200元、合计3341.10元。2010年7月22日，张某经呼和浩特巿第一医院司法鉴定所鉴定鼻骨骨折为十级伤残。程某于2008年6月11日提起离婚诉讼，呼和浩特巿中级人民法院作出（2011)呼民二终字第571号民事判决，判决双方离婚。2010年8月12日，张某向托克托县人民法院提起民事诉讼，要求程某赔偿其医药费、护理费等费用共计六万余元。托克托县人民法院经审理认为，公民的生命健康权受法律保护。根据 最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释（一）》第三十条第（二）项的规定，“符合 婚姻法第四十六条规定的无过错方作为被告的离婚诉讼案件，如果被告不同意离婚也不基于该条规定提起损害赔偿请求的，可以在离婚后一年内就此单独提起诉讼”。张某与程某虽然于2011年8月11日被判决离婚，但是程某于2008年6月11日提起离婚诉讼，而张某在2008年8月5曰就程某对其实施家庭暴力一事已提起刑事自诉且获得了相应的民事赔偿，因而张某在与程某的离婚案件中作为无过错方的被告，已经提起了损害赔偿请求，故张某的行为便不再受上述法律的约束。根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百三十六条的规定，身体受到伤害要求赔偿的诉讼时效为一年，且该诉讼时效期间应从知道或者应当知道权利被侵害时起计算。本案中张某于2008年8月5曰提起刑事自诉这一行为就应当认定为其已经知道了自己的合法权利遭到了侵害而时隔两年后对此事再行起诉，显然超过了诉讼时效，对张某的诉讼请求不予支持，判决驳回原告张某的诉讼请求。
（二）裁判结果
张某不服一审判决，上诉至呼和浩特市中级人民法院，请求二审法院依法改判，支持其诉讼请求。呼和浩特市中级人民法院经审理认为，依据《中华人民共和国法通则》第一百三十六条，“下列的诉讼时效期间为一年：（一）身体受到伤害的；”依据第一百三十七条，“诉讼时效期间从知道或者应当知道权利被侵害时起算”，以及 最高人民法院《关于贯彻执行<中华人民共和国民法通则>若干问题的意见（试行）》第168条，“人身损害赔偿的诉讼时效期间，伤害明显的，从受伤之曰起算；伤害当时未曾发现，后经检查确诊并能证明是由侵害引起的，从伤势确诊之日起算。”本案中程某对张某的人身损害发生于2008年5月26日，2010年7月29日张某经呼和浩特巿第一医院司法鉴定所鉴定鼻骨骨折构成十级伤残，即2010年7月29曰张某的权利被侵害范围和损害数额得以确认，诉讼时效起算时间为2010年7月29日，故张某于2010年8月12日起诉请求程某承担人身损害赔偿责任没有超出诉讼时效。张某因程某的家庭暴力遭受人身损害，并经鉴定部门鉴定构成十级伤残， 依照 最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》相关规定，受害人遭受人身损害的，赔偿义务人应对受害人因人身损害产生的护理费、交通费、住院伙食补助费、必要的营养费、残疾赔偿金、被抚养人生活费、鉴定费、精神损害抚慰金等予以赔偿。综上，一审判决认定事实清楚，但适用法律错误，依法改判：一、撤销托克托县人民法院（2012）托民初字第143号民事判决；二、程某赔偿张某各项费用48664.31元。一、二审案件受理费由程某负担。
（三）典型意义
本案是一起典型的家庭暴力案件，呼和浩特市中级法院针对家庭暴力对象的特殊性、形式的多样性、行为的隐蔽性、结果的循环性等特点，认真审理了此案。被告人程某粗鲁强势，其母目中无人，辱骂法官的行为能够印证家暴是导致他们婚姻关系破裂的主要原因，一个完整的家庭解体了，但对张某身体及精神造成的危害却无法弥补。本案中张某冷静理智，没有采用“以暴制暴”的手段来反抗，而是拿起法律这个有力的武器来捍卫自己的合法权益，其法律意识之强深深打动了每一位法官。以往因家庭暴力导致离婚的案件通常仅仅止步于婚姻关系的终止，受害人在离婚后就人身损害提起民事诉讼的情况极少。本案中张某在婚姻关系存续期间对程某的家庭暴力行为提起过刑事附带民事诉讼，获得了部分赔偿。在离婚后，对家庭暴力造成的人身损害再一次提起了民事诉讼。该案件在当地群众中产生了深远的影响，研究探讨该案例对法律适用和预防家庭暴力行为有着重要意义：
第一、受害人对家庭暴力行为能够及时收集、保留、固定证据，使案件能够顺利立案并最终判决，家庭暴力的施暴者得到了有力的惩治；
第二，该案例为家庭暴力的受害者在离婚后如何请求保护人身损害赔偿指明了道路，最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国婚姻法〉若干问题的解释（一）》对家庭暴力行为进行了定义，对家庭暴力的范畴作出了明确表述，为法官审理此类案件提供了有力的法律依据；
第三，纠正了不正确的认识。刑事附带民事判决不能囊括全部受害人应得的人身损害赔偿，对于没有对受害人进行赔偿的部分，受害人有权另行提起民事诉讼；
第四，许多起家庭暴力案件都造成了极其严重的后果，有些甚至造成了人身伤亡事件，立法者乃至整个社会应当从此案件中反思，如何通过立法、执法行为，在家庭暴力发生前就给施暴者以威慑，从根源上遏制家庭暴力。
三十二、
刘平诉孔霄离婚纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2012年10月，刘平与孔霄经人介绍相识，2012年12月12日登记结婚，随即举行结婚仪式， 2013年1月，刘平回娘家居住，双方分居至今。期间，刘平曾起诉要求离婚，法院以（2013）平民初字第674号民事判决未予准许，后双方仍未能和好，刘平于2013年10月31日再次以其诉求诉至法院。案经调解，双方各执己见，未能达成协议。另查明，双方无婚后共同财产及共同债权、债务。还查明，双方相识后于2012年12月初订立婚约，期间孔霄给付刘平彩礼10001元，商定结婚日期时给付10000元，举行结婚仪式时给付刘平见面礼等，并为刘平购买了戒指（8800元）、手机等物品。双方分居后，双方曾于2013年2月6日就彩礼返还事宜进行协商，刘平确认财物共计43200元。孔霄所提供的彩礼清单内容包括定金等现金、为刘平购买戒指、手机、开车支出等费用共计43200元。刘平在清单上签字确认。在该清单下方，刘平之弟刘永注明：“兹定于2013年2月07日早去平邑县民政局解决男孔霄女刘平婚姻合法。（女方一手交现金为保证） 男为女花43200.00 女方还完之后为保证”，在清单一侧刘永注明：“今欠孔霄现金￥43200.00（为总账） 借款人：刘永 2013.2.06”。
（二）裁判结果
平邑县人民法院一审认为，刘平与孔霄经法院判决不准离婚后仍未能和好，双方夫妻感情确已破裂，故刘平要求离婚，予以准许。双方共同生活时间较短，孔霄要求刘平返还依习俗给付的彩礼，予以支持，刘平应适当返还。故判决准予刘平与孔霄离婚。刘平返还孔霄彩礼款15000元。
临沂市中级人民法院二审认为，本案的争议焦点有二：一是婚约彩礼的数额问题；二是被上诉人及其弟弟王永所书写的彩礼清单及欠款确认条款的效力问题。针对第一个争议焦点，因双方已于2013年2月6日对婚约彩礼的数额予以核对，上诉人孔霄在庭审中提交刘永书写的彩礼清单应视为对清单确认数额的认可，因此，上诉人主张实际为被上诉人花费80600元，本院不予采信。针对第二个争议焦点，根据彩礼清单内容可以看出，被上诉人之弟刘永只是作为女方家人代表在该清单上签字确认，上诉人孔霄与刘永之间并不存在真实的借贷关系。因此，上诉人主张如被上诉人不返还彩礼则彩礼应由刘永偿还的上诉理由本院不予支持。双方签订该彩礼偿还协议后双方并未到平邑县民政局办理离婚登记，现被上诉人刘平拒绝返还彩礼清单上载明的彩礼金额，则该彩礼偿还清单未生效。原审法院根据双方已登记结婚这一事实及婚姻存续时间等实际情况判决被上诉人刘平返还彩礼15000元并无不当。遂判决驳回上诉，维持原判。判决后，双方当事人均服判息诉。
（三）典型意义
离婚案件当事人在离婚诉讼之前，往往对财产分割与子女抚养进行多次协商，在这一过程中，有可能会对上述问题达成一致意见并签订书面协议。对于签订协议后双方即办理离婚登记的情形，该协议成立并生效，协议内容对双方当事人均有约束力。但在签订协议后未办理离婚登记的情形下，应参照《中华人民共和国婚姻法解释（三）》第十四条规定：当事人达成的以登记离婚或者到人民法院协议离婚为条件的财产分割协议，如果双方协议离婚未成，一方在离婚诉讼中反悔的，人民法院应当认定该财产分割协议没有生效，并根据实际情况依法对夫妻共同财产进行分割。这对于均衡双方当事人的合法权益，避免当事人因欠缺法律知识做出错误的意思表示提供最后的救济途径。
三十三、
陈长臻诉陈路程、徐磊、徐春艳赡养纠纷案
(一)基本案情
原告陈长臻与朱兆芸于1986年经政府登记结婚，朱兆芸系再婚，1987年，朱兆芸带徐磊（1975年6月8日出生）、徐春艳（1978年2月10日出生）到山东省莒南县文疃镇大草岭后村与原告陈长臻共同生活。1990年5月13日，陈长臻、朱兆芸生育一子陈路程。1991年被告徐磊离家外出打工，1993年被告徐春艳离家外出打工。2012年2月，朱兆芸去世。原告陈长臻由于年事已高，且没有生活来源，基本生活困难。因三被告拒不履行赡养义务，原告陈长臻遂诉来本院，请求处理。
（二）裁判结果
山东省临沂市莒南县人民法院经审理认为：根据我国法律规定，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务，继父母和受其抚养教育的继子女之间的权利义务与亲生父母子女关系一致。具体到本案，被告徐磊、徐春艳随其母朱兆芸与原告陈长臻长期共同生活，接受原告的抚养教育，与原告之间形成继父母子女关系，被告徐磊、徐春艳对原告陈长臻负有赡养义务。现原告身患疾病、生活困难，且三被告均已成年，具有赡养能力，原告的诉讼请求事实清楚，证据充分，本院予以支持。本案原告的赡养费标准应以统计部门发布的上年度当地农民年均生活消费支出为基准，考虑被告徐磊、徐春艳与原告陈长臻的共同生活时间、感情因素及二被告目前的经济状况，本院酌定被告徐磊、徐春艳负担的赡养费数额以每人每年1 500元为宜。被告陈路程系原告陈长臻的亲生儿子，其对原告陈长臻负有当然的赡养义务，其自愿按照原告的请求以每年3 600元的标准负担赡养费，本院予以确认。
山东省临沂市莒南县人民法院依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第二十一条、第二十七条之规定，作出如下判决：
一、被告陈路程于自2014年起，于每年的6月1日前支付给原告陈长臻当年度赡养费3 600元。
二、被告徐磊、徐春艳自2014年起，于每年的6月1日前分别支付给原告陈长臻当年度赡养费1 500元。
（三）典型意义
赡养老人是中华民族的传统美德，做好农村老人赡养工作是个长期而艰巨的任务，而继父母的赡养问题更加复杂。当前农村存在很多继父母与继子女之间的关系。继父母与继子女间的关系问题，是一个较为敏感的社会问题。正确认识继父母子女的关系性质，适用有关法律对继父母子女关系进行全面调整，具有重要的社会意义。
法律规定，继父母与继子女之间有抚养关系的，继子女必须对继父母承担赡养义务。针对继父母这一特殊群体，法官应不断分析新情况、探索新办法、解决新问题，及时维护农村老人的合法权益，确保老人安度晚年，真正做到案结事了人和。
三十四、
原告李泊霖、李宁诉被告李涛抚养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告李泊霖系被告李涛之子，被告李涛与原告的母亲李宁于2008年9月协议离婚并到民政部门办理了离婚手续。离婚协议书约定“原告李泊霖由男方抚养，女方暂代养孩子四年，男方不支付抚养费。孩子上大学、结婚费用全部由男方承担。”当时原告李泊霖刚满14岁，此后原告李泊霖一直由其母亲李宁抚养。自2012年9月份，原告李泊霖进入武汉科技大学学习，除每年需要交纳学费、校内住宿费、职业培训费等，还需要一大笔生活费，原告李泊霖因此多次向被告要钱支付上述费用，但被告作为父亲一直拒不支付。原告李泊霖、李宁诉至法院，请求法院依法判令被告支付学费27 840元、生活费用60 000元、培训费4 770元、购买电脑费用6 600元、购买羽绒服费用859元，共计99 469元。
（二）裁判结果
山东省临沭县人民法院一审认为，本案系基于原告李宁与被告李涛离婚时所达成的离婚协议中关于子女抚养和教育费用约定的履行问题而产生纠纷，因此，首先应当就原告李宁与被告李涛关于“原告李泊霖由男方抚养，女方暂代养孩子四年，男方不支付抚养费，孩子上大学、结婚费用全部由男方承担”这一约定的合法性进行审查。《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十七条规定，离婚后，一方抚养的子女，另一方应负担必要的生活费和教育费的一部或全部，负担费用的多少和期限的长短，由双方协议；协议不成时，由人民判决。依照该规定，子女的生活费及教育费由一方承担部分或全部承担均可。本案原告李宁与被告李涛就原告李泊霖的抚养及抚养费的承担方式、承担时间的约定不违反该条法律规定，且该约定系原告李宁与被告李涛的真实意思表示，内容并不违反其他法律的禁止性规定。被告李涛应当按照约定承担向原告李泊霖支付大学期间必要的生活费及教育费的民事责任。《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第二十一条第一、二款规定：“父母对子女有抚养教育的义务；子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。父母不履行抚养义务时，未成年的或不能独立生活的子女，有要求父母付给抚养费的权利”。该条法律所规定的是家庭关系中父母与子女之间的法定权利与法定义务，而 最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国婚姻法》若干问题的解释（一）第二十条关于“ 婚姻法第二十一条规定的‘不能独立生活的子女’，是指尚在校接受高中及以下学历教育，或者丧失或未完全丧失劳动能力等非主观原因而无法维持正常生活的成年子女。”的规定，是对“不能独立生活的子女”范围的界定。上述法律及司法解释是就父母对“不能独立生活的子女”承担抚养义务属法定义务作出的规定，并不禁止父母对不属于“不能独立生活的子女”之外的子女自愿或通过约定的方式承担抚养义务。因此，被告李涛不能依据上述法律及司法解释拒绝履行离婚时与原告李宁所约定的对原告李泊霖抚养义务。原告李泊霖现为在校就读的大学生，被告李涛无证据证明原告李泊霖有可维持自己在校生活、学习的收入来源，即应当按照离婚时与原告李宁的约定承担原告李泊霖在上大学期间的生活、学习所必须的费用。原告李泊霖上大学期间的学费可根据其就读学校出具的收款收据予以确定，对于原告李泊霖的生活费，法院综合考虑原告李泊霖就读学校所在地的消费水平以及被告李涛的收入等情况，酌情确定原告李泊霖上大学期间，被告每年给付生活费6 000元。原告李泊霖没提供证据证明购买电脑和参加校外培训属于上大学期间的必要开支，被告可以不承担这部分费用。原告李泊霖购买衣服的花费应从生活费中列支，对其要求被告承担该费用的诉讼请求法院不予支持。原告李宁虽系与被告李涛达成离婚协议的一方当事人，但就子女抚养费的约定，权利主体应为原告李泊霖，而原告李泊霖已成年且具有完全的民事行为能力，应由原告李泊霖依法独立行使抚养费的请求权。原告李宁并不享有所约定的原告李泊霖抚养费的请求权，不是涉案抚养费的权利主体，其原告主体不适格。依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第四条、《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十七条的规定，依法作出如下判决：一、被告李涛给付原告李泊霖上大学期的学费27 840元；二、被告李涛给付原告李泊霖上大学期的生活费24 000元；三、上述一、二项于本判决生效后十日内付清；四、驳回原告李泊霖的其它诉讼请求；五、驳回原告李宁的诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
随着我国高等教育的逐渐普及，上大学（含各类职业技术学校）越来越成为适龄青少年的普遍选择。就我国传统习惯和绝大多数的家庭选择而言，没能经济独立的子女就读大学（含各类职业技术学校）的费用，由有经济能力的父母支付已然成为一种惯例。然而我国民法通则、婚姻法、未成年人保护法等等法律，却作出了与之相悖的规定，父母没有义务支付该部分费用。这就造成了习惯做法、社会传统和法律规定的冲突。尤其是在离异家庭中，这种冲突直接导致了亲情的反目和对立。本案就是涉及大学期间学费、生活费负担问题的典型案例。
本案中，原告李宁与被告李涛的离婚协议是双方真实意思表示，双方对于孩子上大学学费、生活费和结婚费用的约定，是其离婚协议的一部分，是双方在离婚时就子女读书、婚嫁事宜作出的合理安排，且原告李宁为达成离婚协议而自愿承担原告李泊霖成年之前的抚养义务，并免除了被告李涛支付抚养费的法定义务，这也可视为原告李宁为争取到孩子的大学学费和婚嫁费用而在其他方面做出的让步。这种约定不违反法律的禁止性规定，合法有效，依法应当得到法律的支持和认可。如果认定离婚协议的该条款无效，则不但违背了民法的基本原则，对原告李宁的权益也是一种损害。故本案一审法院本着尊重当事人意思自治的原则，依法支持了原告李泊霖的合法诉求，为同类案件的审理提供了可资借鉴的依据。
三十五、
李某福诉李甲、李乙赡养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
李某福今年65岁，与妻子育有两子，李甲和李乙。2001年妻子去世后，李某福一直未再婚，一人独居。后因土地被征收，李某福获得了政府各项补偿款近20万元。在过渡安置期间，李某福与李甲一起居住生活。现李某福以自己年老体弱、无生活来源为由向重庆市江北区人民法院提起诉讼，要求李甲和李乙每人每月支付其生活费500元；另如果将来生病产生住院医疗费，两个儿子各承担50%。
李甲辩称，虽然自己身患残疾，妻子也长年患病，但他愿意与父亲同住。如果父亲坚持独居，他愿意每月支付500元生活费。如果将来父亲生病住院，他愿意承担一半医疗费。
李乙辩称，希望父亲与自己共同生活，但目前自己经济压力很大，每月只能支付父亲200元生活费。如果父亲将来住院，应当先由父亲用存款支付，不足部分自己承担50%。
（二）裁判结果
法院经审理认为，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。李某福年事已高，没有劳动能力，其有权利要求成年子女对自己进行赡养。李某福在土地被征收后，虽然获得各项补偿款近20万元，但他没有自有房屋居住，需要租赁或购买房屋, 同时还需要购买日常生活资料。李某福目前每月领取养老保险金605元，参照重庆市上年度城镇居民人均消费性支出标准，李甲和李乙每人每月还应当向李某福支付300元生活费。李甲明确表示愿意支付500元，法院予以确认。另李某福并未举示证据证明其产生了住院医疗费，可在实际产生费用后另行向义务人主张。综上，法院判决李甲每月向李某福支付生活费500元，李乙每月向李某福支付生活费300元，驳回李某福其他诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
随着社会经济发展，年轻人生活压力不断增大，面对资源相对有限的现实，相继出现“啃老族”、“不管族”。“啃老族”在工作成家后，依然向父母伸手要钱；“不管族”念在父母有存款或者有生活来源，不履行赡养义务，任凭老人“自生生灭”。 《婚姻法》第21条规定，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务，子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。《老年人权益保障法》第14条规定，赡养人应当履行对老年人经济上供养、生活上照料和精神上慰藉的义务，照顾老年人的特殊需要。因此，子女不能因为父母有存款或者有一定的经济来源就完全将父母置之不顾，这不仅违反法律规定，也不符合中华民族“百善孝为先”的传统美德。在日常生活中，我们应当在物质上、精神上、生活上给予老人全方面的关心和爱护，妥善安排老人的衣、食、住、行，鼓励老人健康生活、快乐生活，使他们在感情上得到慰藉，愉快地安度晚年。
三十六、
张某与蒋某婚姻家庭纠纷案
（一）基本案情
蒋某与张某经人介绍相识恋爱后于2004年3月4日办理结婚登记手续。婚后于2008年9月14日生育一子张某某。后双方因生活琐事发生争吵，致使夫妻感情不睦。张某于2014年4月25日委托西南政法大学司法鉴定中心对张某和张某某进行亲子鉴定。该中心作出的鉴定结论为：不支持张某与张某某之间存在亲生血缘关系。张某遂向法院提起诉讼，请求依法判令原、被告离婚，由蒋某承担张某养育张某某的抚养费41387.5元并赔偿张某精神损害抚慰金10万元。同时查明，双方婚后于2006年共同购买位于大竹县某小区的门市一间，面积36.58㎡，产权人登记为蒋某。
（二）裁判结果
大竹法院一审审理认为：张某与蒋某婚后常为生活琐事争吵，现经鉴定张某某不是张某亲生子，严重伤害夫妻感情，故法院认定夫妻感情确已破裂。张某请求蒋某支付精神损害赔偿应当支持，根据本案案情，确定精神抚慰金30 000元为宜；张某既非张某某的生父，又非养父继父，无法定扶养义务，故张某要求蒋某支付张某某抚养费41 387.5元，理由正当，法院予以支持；双方婚后购买位于大竹县某小区的门市一间应认定为夫妻共同财产，双方各分得一半。蒋某称婚后共同翻修原告父母房屋，应当对增值部分平均分割，因涉及第三人产权，本案不作处理。据此判决：一、准予原告张某与被告蒋某离婚；二、非婚生子张某某由被告蒋某抚养，被告蒋某支付原告张某养育张某某的抚养费41 387.5元，被告蒋某赔偿原告张某某精神抚慰金30 000元；三、夫妻婚后购买登记于被告蒋某名下的位于大竹县某小区的门市一间，原、被告各占50%产权。
宣判后蒋某以“一审法院错误采信西南政法大学司法鉴定中心的检验报告书，判决上诉人向被上诉人返还抚养费41 387.5元及赔偿精神抚慰金3万元没有事实依据，属适用法律不当”等为由向达州中院提起上诉。
达州中院审理认为：张某委托西南政法大学司法鉴定中心作出亲子鉴定检验报告书，该检验报告结论为：不支持张某与张某某之间存在亲生血缘关系。蒋某上诉称西南政法大学司法鉴定中心的鉴定检验报告书缺乏真实性，不应采信，但在一审审理中，经原审人民法院向蒋某释明，蒋某已明确表示自己不申请重新鉴定。蒋某又无其他证据证实作出该检验报告的鉴定机构或者鉴定人员不具备相关的鉴定资格、鉴定程序严重违法、或鉴定结论明显依据不足，故原审法院对该鉴定结论予以采信并无不当。蒋某上诉称自己系遭受不法侵害，但未提供证据证实，对其该项诉称理由不予采纳。张某某现经鉴定非张某的亲生子，蒋某的过错行为已严重伤害夫妻感情，蒋某上诉称与张某感情较好的理由不能成立，原审法院判决准予离婚正确。因蒋某在婚姻关系存续期间存在过错，故原审法院判决蒋某向张某赔偿精神损害抚慰金并无不当。张某某与张某并无血缘关系，对其并无法定抚养义务，故对其在婚姻关系存续期间为张某某所付出的抚养费应当由蒋某支付给张某。达州中院据此判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。
（三）典型意义
《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第四条规定了夫妻应当互相忠实、互相尊重的义务。违反忠实义务往往对配偶的情感和精神造成非常严重的伤害。这和我国社会一般大众因为习惯、传统等原因对婚姻家庭的认识有很大关系。故《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国婚姻法〉若干问题的解释（一）》第二十八条规定: 婚姻法第四十六条规定的“损害赔偿”，包括物质损害赔偿和精神损害赔偿。涉及精神损害赔偿的，适用 最高人民法院《关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》的有关规定。本案中张某在得知张某某并非自己的亲生子后，其精神受到伤害，要求蒋某赔偿精神损害抚慰金的理由正当合法，得到了法院的支持。而张某某因与张某并无血缘关系，张某对其并无法定抚养义务，故法院对张某要求蒋某返还自己已承担的张某某的抚养费的主张予以了支持。
三十七、
黄某某与张某某婚内扶养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
黄某某与张某某于1987年12月31日登记结婚，婚后生育一子（已成人）。黄某某、张某某婚后共同在岳池县九龙镇购置了住房两套、门市一个，其中一套住房用于一家人自住，另一套住房及门市出租。2009年4月，黄某某被诊断患有“脊髓空洞症、抑郁症”，至今未愈，每月需要较多的医药费，除住院可报销部分医疗费外，其余药费需黄某某自己负担。黄某某现为四川省岳池某公司职工，因长期病休，每月领取工资1188元，住房及门市租金24000元/年均由黄某某收取。张某某系某银行下岗职工，每月领取下岗失业军转干部生活困难补助费1476元，患有“脂肪肝、前列腺囊肿”，有母亲需赡养。张某某下岗后常年在外务工当监理，收入较高。近年来，黄某某、张某某因性格不合及黄某某患病，双方时常发生矛盾，张某某多次起诉要求离婚，因黄某某坚决不同意离婚，张某某的离婚诉讼请求均被驳回，张某某便离家外出租房生活。2014年6月5日，黄某某诉至岳池法院称她身患多病，每月需万元以上药费，张某某不尽丈夫义务，致使她债台高筑，请求法院判决张某某尽扶养义务，按月承担医疗费、生活补助费、护理费6000元。张某某辩称，黄某某每月有固定收入，有租房租金，有医保报销医疗费，其家里的多年积蓄全在黄某某处，他也身患多病，又下岗，工资低，还要赡养90多岁的母亲，不同意支付黄某某扶养费。
（二）裁判结果
岳池法院经审理认为，夫妻有互相扶养的义务。黄某某与张某某系合法夫妻，本应相互关心，彼此扶助。现黄某某身患严重疾病，需要人照顾，而张某某离家出走，使黄某某陷入生活困难，并且现在黄某某病休期间工资收入微薄，虽尚有房屋租金收入，但治病除医保报销之外，自己需负担一部分医药费，其费用相对黄某某的收入，难以承担。故黄某某生活很困难，而张某某除了固定每月领取军转干部生活困难补助费1476元/月外，一直在外务工，因此，张某某应当付给黄某某扶养费以尽扶养义务。根据双方的情况，考虑到黄某某另外有儿子应当依法尽赡养义务等因素，酌定张某某支付黄某某1000元/月扶养费较适宜。遂判决：张某某每月付给黄某某医疗、生活补助、护理等扶养费1000元。
黄某某、张某某均不服一审判决，向本院提起上诉。黄某某上诉称，一审判决张某某给付的扶养费过低，要求二审改判张某某给付扶养费6000元/月。张某某上诉称一审判决他每月支付黄某某1000元扶养费错误，要求二审改判他不予支付。
本院认为，《中华人民共和国婚姻法》规定，夫妻有互相扶养的义务，一方不履行扶养义务时，需要扶养的一方，有要求对方付给扶养费的权利。黄某某与张某某系夫妻，本应相互关心，彼此扶助，而张某某在黄某某身患严重疾病、特别需要丈夫照顾时，却不履行丈夫义务、离家出走。现黄某某虽有工资收入、房屋租金收入，但因其每天需服多种药，每月需负担不少的医药费，致使黄某某生活陷入困难，作为丈夫的张某某依法应对黄某某尽扶养义务。虽然张某某也患病，但张某某未提供证据证明其所患之病需大量的医药费，加之张某某除了每月固定领取军转干部生活困难补助费1476元/月外，一直在外务工，有一定的收入。黄某某也未提供充分证据证明张某某有每月支付6000元的经济能力。一审根据双方的实际情况，结合黄某某还有儿子应当依法尽赡养义务及张某某有一定的经济能力等因素，酌定张某某每月支付黄某某1000元扶养费是恰当的。遂判决驳回双方的上诉，维持原判。
（三）典型意义
近年来，因夫妻一方患病导致夫妻感情淡化，因意外事故导致婚姻难以维系时，一方离家不离婚以及一方坚决离婚、不尽扶养义务，另一方坚决不离婚的情况时有发生，婚内扶养案件在婚姻家庭纠纷案件中愈来愈多。我国《婚姻法》第二十条规定：夫妻有互相扶养的义务。一方不履行扶养义务时，需要扶养的一方，有要求对方给付扶养费的权利。婚内扶养义务不仅仅是一个道德问题，更是夫妻之间的法定义务，有扶养能力的一方必须自觉履行这一义务，特别是在对方患病，或是丧失劳动能力的情况下更应该做到这一点。如果一方不履行这一法定义务，另一方可通过法律途径实现自己的合法权益。扶养责任的承担，既是婚姻关系得以维持和存续的前提，也是夫妻共同生活的保障。本案中，黄某某、张某某系合法夫妻，现黄某某身患疾病，需大量医疗费，而张某某撒手不管，多次提出离婚，一、二审鉴于黄某某确实需要扶养，张某某又有一定的经济能力，酌定张某某婚内每月给付黄某某1000元扶养费，充分保护了需要扶养一方的权利，也给那些不尽夫妻扶养义务的具有一定的警示作用。
三十八、
弟媳向“大伯子”索要儿子抚养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
曾某系刘某弟媳，双方所居住的房屋因政府征用需搬迁，曾某急需另租房居住，便托刘某帮忙找房。2012年4月，刘某谎称找到房子，曾某便随其看房，刘某将曾某带到其正帮人装修的房屋内，双方发生了性关系。一个月后，曾某发现自己怀孕后告知刘某，刘某让曾某将孩子生下来。2013年2月曾某生下一健康男婴，曾某借款缴纳了社会抚养费（该男婴系超生二胎生育）。当曾某要求刘某支付生育孩子期间的医疗费、孩子的社会抚养费等相应费用时，刘某拒绝支付，并拒绝承认该孩子系其亲生。曾某无奈自行带刘某的头发到鉴定中心鉴定，确认孩子系刘某亲生，曾某的丈夫刘某某不是孩子的生物学父亲。但刘某仍拒绝支付相应费用，曾某诉至法院，要求刘某支付医疗费、社会抚养费、生活费等相应费用。
沿滩区人民法院受理后为查明事实，经刘某申请，委托了相应鉴定机构，对曾某所生之子是否系刘某亲生进行了鉴定，经鉴定该孩子确为刘某与曾某的生物学子女。
（二）裁判结果
承办人查明此事实后，向双方当事人宣传了法律，使双方认识到自身的责任和义务，双方自愿达成协议，孩子随曾某共同生活，刘某自2014年8月起每月支付孩子生活费650元至孩子独立生活时止，孩子的教育费、医疗费由双方各承担50%，刘某支付曾某垫付的医疗费、社会抚养费等各项费用34000元。“大伯子亲儿子”风波就此平息。
（三）典型意义
从生物学上讲刘某系孩子的父亲，按照婚姻法规定亲生父亲有抚养教育子女的义务。但是鉴于双方都有各自的家庭，共同抚养孩子是双方家庭的不稳定因素，所以以支付抚养费的方式为宜。
三十九、
原告汤某诉被告姜某离婚纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2009年3月，原、被告经征婚相识，同年6月二人办理了结婚登记。因二人均是再婚，原告婚前已有一女。婚后，双方于2013年7月6日生育一女姜某某。后来，原、被告因性格及生活习惯有差异，导致双方常因此发生口角，原告认为自己身心受到伤害，请求法院判令原、被告离婚。另，原告婚前已有一女汤某某，由原告抚养。
再查明，原、被告于婚前购买商品房一套，婚后，被告单位给其分配集资住房一套。
（二）裁判结果
本院认为，原、被告双方结婚已达5年，且婚后于2013年生有一女，女儿在原告诉讼离婚时尚不满一周岁，双方结婚已达5年之久，有足够时间相互了解，双方具有感情基础，虽然在本院诉讼过程中，被告一度同意离婚，但本院认为，离婚的前提是感情破裂，双方在女儿出生后发生矛盾较多实际上是双方沟通较少，影响双方感情，原、被告双方均为有知识、有文化、有正当职业的国家工作人员，且双方均无不良恶习，只要双方互谅互让，多换位思考，多沟通交流，双方的矛盾是可以消除的，双方感情尚未彻底破裂。加之，双方婚生女姜某某在原告起诉离婚时尚不满一周岁，故本院对原告提出离婚的诉讼请求不予支持，根据《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十二条、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第六十四条、最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据若干的规定》第二条之规定，判决驳回原告汤某的诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
司法实践中，法院受理的离婚案件，为利于改善双方当事人的关系，促进家庭的和睦，社会的稳定，对一些夫妻感情尚未破裂或者一方没有证据证实夫妻感情确已达到破裂程度的案件，法院会作出不准许离婚的判决，以期双方当事人审慎对待婚姻家庭问题，能够重新和好。在上述情形下，一部分离婚案件当事人能够彼此改正缺点，加强交流和沟通，增加夫妻感情密切程度，和好如初。
婚姻最本质的因素和基础应是夫妻间的感情，夫妻共同生活是基于感情的必然要求，这也是婚姻关系的重要内容。在本案中，虽原告提出双方常发生口角，但双方并未提供证据证实夫妻感情确已达到破裂程度，只要双方互谅互让，多换位思考，多沟通交流，双方的矛盾是可以消除的，双方感情尚未彻底破裂。加之，双方婚生女姜某某在原告起诉离婚时尚不满一周岁，原、被告双方的离婚不利于孩子的身心健康，有可能对其生长产生不利影响，故本院对原告提出离婚的诉讼请求不予支持。
四十、
张老太与子女赡养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
父亲去世前，三子女就母亲张老太的赡养问题达成协议，约定每人每月付给母亲500元赡养费。岂料一年后，张老太将房产无偿赠与了儿子李军，这下大女儿李丽、小女儿李菲都不愿意了。
2014年12月，张老太将李丽、李菲、李军三子女起诉至乌鲁木齐市米东区人民法院，要求三被告支付每月赡养费500元（自2014年6月起）并承担本案诉讼费。开庭时，张老太因远在广东委托了代理律师出庭，小女儿李菲委托代理人出庭声称，2013年4月所签订的赡养协议三方并没有实际履行，自己也不同意继续履行；母亲张老太自己有退休工资、存款和积蓄，经济收入较高，生活较为宽裕，不属于没有经济能力，法律上明确规定属于不需要一定给付赡养费的范畴；此外，李菲还认为，本案是儿子李军假借母亲张老太名义起诉，实际是李军为了侵占母亲财产所为；因此不同意给付母亲张老太每月500元赡养费。
大女儿李丽未到庭参加诉讼，但向法院提交了书面答辩意见，也不同意按照每月500元的标准支付原告张老太赡养费。理由是：第一、2013年4月的赡养协议系三子女所签订，并非与张老太签订，该协议已经于2014年11月正式解除，李丽已于2014年11月将《解除赡养协议通知书》邮寄送达至被告李菲、李军处，在李菲、李军签收后，2014年11月28日，该协议即已解除；第二、本案起诉并非母亲张老太本人意思表示，起诉书上的笔迹并非母亲本人签名，是李军假借母亲名义将女儿告上法庭；第三、2013年4月协议中明确约定：“母亲张老太养老居住房屋在有生之年不允许变卖和处分，留作晚年自用”，母亲张老太已将位于乌市价值40多万元的房屋无偿赠予给李军，李军表示自愿承担赡养及照顾母亲张老太的义务，李军的行为导致赡养协议中的客观情况发生了根本变化，故应解除该赡养协议；第四、原告张老太每月有固定退休养老金3000多元，加之还有个人积蓄存款7万元，经济收入较为富裕，不需要子女再给付赡养费。
被告李军未到庭参加诉讼，但向法院提交了书面答辩意见，同意每月支付赡养费500元。
法院经审理查明，原告张老太系乌鲁木齐某公司退岗家属，每月有养老金及其他生活补贴等近三千元收入。张老太与其丈夫李某结婚后生育长女李丽、长子李军、次女李菲三个子女。2013年4月，长女李丽于起草了一份“赡养协议”，协议约定：“一、母亲现有一套住房在有生之年不允许变卖，留作晚年自用，闲置期间可以酌情出租，但房屋租赁租金属母亲所有。二、母亲有自己的养老收入，…三子女需分别轮流承担陪伴照料义务，母亲由哪位子女照料陪伴，其他两位子女需每月支付500元赡养费，并于每月30日前汇入指定帐号，…”签订该赡养协议时，原告张老太知道且同意该份赡养协议的内容。协议签订以后，母亲先在大女儿李丽处生活，后于2013年11月底至2015年开庭时都在广东与儿子李军一同生活，之前李军也按月向母亲支付赡养费。大女儿李丽和小女儿李菲给母亲按月支付赡养费至2014年5月，后得知母亲将乌市的房子无偿赠与给弟弟李军之后，李丽和李菲不再给母亲支付赡养费用。2014年11月25日，李丽通过EMS给李菲、李军邮寄了解除赡养协议通知书，李菲收到通知书后书面表示同意解除赡养协议。
针对李菲和李丽曾先后提出原告的诉状及其授权委托书非本人签名并申请签名的真伪进行笔迹签定的问题，法官考虑到原告张老太年事已高，且在广东生活，不能亲自参加庭审，法官通过电话与其沟通后，张老太于2015年3月在广东当地公证处为民事起诉状及代理人的授权委托书分别办理了签名公证和委托公证。
（二）裁判结果
乌鲁木齐市米东区人民法院认为：根据婚姻法规定子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务，子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力或生活困难的父母，有要求子女给付赡养费的权利。该条规定了赡养义务作为一项基本的法定义务，因其涉及最基本的身份血缘关系和基本的社会公德，属于法定强制性义务，不能由赡养人随意解除。而该条文也明确规定了赡养对象为“无劳动能力或生活困难的父母”，即父母只要符合或者无劳动能力，或者生活困难中的一项，子女就应当对其履行赡养义务，而并非“无劳动能力且生活困难”。本案中，原告张老太在本案诉讼期间已经83岁高龄，达到法律规定可以认定为无劳动能力标准，即使其每月有固定收入，也并不影响其向子女要求给付赡养费。
同时，老年人权益保护法第十九条规定：“赡养人不履行义务，老年人有要求赡养人给付赡养费等权利。”该法第二十条规定：“经老年人同意，赡养人之间可以就履行赡养义务签订协议。赡养协议的内容不得违反法律的规定和老年人的意愿。”从该条规定来看，赡养协议必须满足以下条件：一是订立主体仅限于赡养人之间；二是赡养协议的形式必须以书面为之；三是赡养人签订的赡养协议须征得被赡养老人同意后才有效。本案中，被告李丽、李菲、李军作为赡养人，2013年4月就赡养母亲张老太事宜签订书面协议，张老太知道且同意该协议，且协议签订后，被告李丽、李菲按照该协议实际履行了六个月，李军实施履行了五个月。虽然被告李丽辩解称该协议的解除通知书已经书面邮寄给李军，而李军在收到协议后因未向法院提起诉讼而导致该协议解除，但是由于子女的赡养义务具有法律强制性和人身性且涉及基本的社会公德，赡养协议与一般 合同法中的协议性质并不相同，其解除条件与 合同法中协议解除条件亦不相同，赡养义务不能以单方协议的形式予以免除，故被告李丽的辩解理由不能成立，法院对此不予采纳。2013年4月的赡养协议合法有效，应当继续履行。最终法院判决大女儿李丽、儿子李军、小女儿李菲各自给付张老太自2014年6月起至2015年3月止十个月的赡养费共计5000元，于判决生效十日内付清。
（三）典型意义
古话说“养儿防老”，虽说传统上老百姓一般把养老的义务主要放在儿子身上，但现代社会中，女儿和儿子一样具有对父母亲进行赡养的义务，这是法定强制义务，不会因父母的过错或其他原因而解除，父母能不辞辛苦抚育儿女长大成人，儿女也应不讲条件地照顾和赡养老人，动物尚有“乌鸦反哺”、“羊羔跪乳”之举，而作为万物之灵的人类，理应做得更好。
四十一、
朱绍昌诉朱正方、朱正德、朱立香赡养费纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告朱绍昌于1947年与黄桃香结婚，婚后生育了两个儿子，朱正方与小和生。1959年小和生与黄桃香相继死亡。1961年原告朱绍昌与王志芳再婚，王志芳带着已有9岁的前婚生女朱立香和7岁的前婚生子朱正德到原告朱绍昌家生活，与原告朱绍昌及其前婚生子朱正方组成新的家庭。原告朱绍昌与王志芳再婚后又生育了朱桂菊、朱桂萍两个女儿。后被告朱正方与被告朱立香结婚，被告朱正德亦娶妻在家，朱桂菊、朱桂萍出嫁在外，其中朱桂菊于1986年死亡。1989年原告朱绍昌之母去世后，原告朱绍昌与王志芳到楚雄谋生。2000年农历4月26日王志芳病故，被告朱正德按分家协议为其办理了后事。后原告朱绍昌仍在楚雄生活。2007年11月13日，原告朱绍昌向姚安县人民法院提起诉讼，要求被告朱正方、朱正德履行赡养义务。该案经本院审理，于2007年12月4日作出（2007）姚民初字第369号民事判决，判决如下:一、原告朱绍昌的责任田由被告朱正方负责耕种，每年10月31日前称给原告朱绍昌大米200千克，并承担各种公益负担；二、由被告朱正方和朱正德每年分别给付原告朱绍昌赡养费120元、360元，于10月31日前付清；三、由被告朱正方将原告朱绍昌的住房交由其居住使用；四、原告朱绍昌的医药费由朱正芳、朱正德各承担五分之一；上述判决有执行内容的，自2008年1月1日起执行。在姚安县人民法院院作出（2007）姚民初字第369号民事判决后，原告朱绍昌不服该判决，向楚雄彝族自治州中级人民法院提起上诉，楚雄彝族自治州中级人民法院经审理后，于2008年3月28日作出（2008）楚中民一终字第68号民事判决，判决驳回上诉，维持原判。2015年6月30日，原告朱绍昌以原判决确定给付的赡养费过低，难于维持基本生活为由，就其赡养问题再次向姚安法院提起诉讼。
（二）裁判结果
经姚安县人民法院审理认为，《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第二十一规定：“父母对子女有抚养教育的义务；子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。父母不履行抚养义务时，未成年的或不能独立生活的子女，有要求父母付给抚养费的权利。子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。”在本案中，原告朱绍昌就其赡养问题已于2007年11月13日向本院提起诉讼，要求被告朱正方、朱正德履行给付其赡养费的义务。本院和楚雄彝族自治州中级人民法院经审理先后作出判决，判决由被告朱正方、朱正德对原告朱绍昌给付赡养费。现原告朱绍昌以原判决确定给付的赡养费过低，难于维持基本生活为由，就其赡养问题再次向本院提起诉讼。经姚安法院审理认为原告朱绍昌要求被告朱正方、朱正德、朱立香给付其赡养费符合法律规定，但在确定被告朱正方、朱正德、朱立香向原告朱绍昌给付赡养费时，应充分考虑原告朱绍昌的实际需要及被告朱正方、朱正德、朱立香的履行能力。故对原告朱绍昌提出的诉讼请求，本院依法予以部分支持。依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第二十一条的规定，判决如下：
一、原告朱绍昌的责任田由被告朱正方、朱立香负责耕种，由被告朱正方、朱立香于每年（含2015年)10月31日以前称给原告朱绍昌大米200千克。
二、由被告朱正方、朱立香于每年（含2015年）10月31日以前给付原告朱绍昌生活费500元，由被告朱正德于每年（含2015年）10月31日以前给付原告朱绍昌生活费500元。
三、原告朱绍昌的医疗费，由被告朱正方、朱立香承担50％，被告朱正德承担25％，每年由被告朱正方、朱立香、朱正德分两次给付原告朱绍昌，其中于每年4月30日以前给付一次，每年（含2015年）10月31日以前给付一次。
四、上述一、二、三款规定，限判决生效之日起开始执行。
案件受理费50元，由被告朱正方、朱立香承担25元，被告朱正德承担25元。
（三）典型意义
随着我国老龄化人口急剧增多，农村老人的赡养问题已成为一种突出的社会现象。
该案中，老人都已80多岁，而子女也已是60多岁的人，并且子女无正式工作，还依靠下一代来赡养，但因老人觉得赡养费太低还是要起诉60多岁的儿女。所以在审理该案时，承办法官综合考虑各方因素，我国《婚姻法》规定：“父母对子女有抚养教育的义务，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。”这说明父母子女间的权利义务是对等的，父母抚养了子女，对社会和家庭尽到了责任，当父母年老体衰时，子女也应尽赡养扶助父母的义务。我国《老年人权益保障法》则规定，老年人养老主要依靠家庭，家庭成员应当关心和照料老年人。赡养人应当履行对老年人经济上供养、生活上照料和精神上慰藉的义务，照顾老年人的特殊需要，对患病的老年人应当提供医疗费用和护理。赡养人不履行赡养义务，老年人有要求赡养人付给赡养费的权利。赡养人之间可以就履行赡养义务签订协议，并征得老年人的同意。
先哲孟子的名言“老吾老以及人之老，幼吾幼以及人之幼，天下可运于掌。”把敬老爱幼提高到了治国安邦的高度，成为我国传统孝文化的精华。天下父母们在“幼吾幼以及人之幼”上大都做得无私而近乎完美，把子女养大成人后仍无怨无悔地奉献“余热”：带孙子孙女，作“免费饭堂、旅馆、保姆”，被子女心安理得“傍老”甚至无情地“啃老”、“刮老”，不求什么回报，只要看到子孙幸福有出息就很满足。相比之下，子女们做得如何呢？答案是令人遗憾而诧异的：在我国已步入老龄化社会的今天，不少子女和父母对簿公堂，缘由是老年人得不到适当的甚至起码的赡养，父母、子孙在彼此的矛盾冲突和泣血伤痛后终于无奈地对峙在法庭之上。这不能不说是一个与当代和谐社会大背景不协调的现象。在社会经济大幅飙升、生活水平不断改善的今天，为何子女与父母之间的亲情如此淡薄？老人的白发清泪，几代子女的争执和叹息不能不引起我们的深思。
四十二、
冯某诉蔡某解除收养关系纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2001年12月21日，云南省师宗县的冯某夫妻生育女儿蔡琼。2002年开始，冯某同意蔡琼由被告蔡某抚养，并将蔡琼的户口落在蔡某的户口本上，但蔡某未到相关部门办理收养手续。后蔡琼与蔡某关系恶化，蔡某打骂蔡琼，蔡琼与蔡某的矛盾日愈加深。现冯某因蔡琼的抚养问题诉至法院，请求判决解除蔡某与蔡琼的收养关系。
（二）裁判结果
云南省师宗县法院审理认为：1998年11月4日修订的《中华人民共和国收养法》第十五条第一款规定：收养应当向县级以上人民政府民政部门登记。收养关系自登记之日起成立。本案中，蔡某对蔡琼的抚养从2002年开始，且未到民政部门办理过收养登记手续，故蔡某与蔡琼之间并未形成收养关系，原告冯某对蔡琼的抚养权依然存在，故原告提出解除蔡某与蔡琼的收养关系的诉讼请求，法院依法不予以支持。遂判决驳回冯某诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
我国有不少收养关系并非签订书面收养协议，也不办理收养登记手续，而是事实收养关系，如果收养事实发生在《收养法》颁布之后，这样的收养关系是否有效?
1999年实行的新修改收养法时已经将收养关系的成立限定在“收养应当向县级以上人民政府民政部门登记。合法有效的收养关系应当是经过民政部门的登记。同样，对于 收养法施行前成立的收养关系也予以默认，《收养法》颁布后没有经过登记的收养是不受到法律保护的。
四十三、
原告吕某芳诉被告许某坤离婚案
（一）基本案情
原告吕某芳与被告许某坤于2003年经原告姑妈介绍认识后自由恋爱，2004年6月24日经登记结婚。婚后双方于2006年到云南省宣威市生活并于2009年经营一家餐馆。双方于2004年10月26日生育长子，现读四年级；于2009年3月6日生育次子，现读学前班，现二子均随原告父母生活。婚后共同生活期间，因被告许某坤怀疑原告吕某芳与他人存在不正当男女关系双方产生矛盾，2015年3月22日原被告发生吵打。2015年6月25日，原告吕某芳向宣威市人民法院起诉，要求与被告离婚，原被告所生长子、次子由原告抚养，被告按月支付抚养费4000元直至孩子成年为止。双方有共同财产存款50多万元、经营餐馆价值55000元，由双方平均分割。另查明，2015年2月4日至3月9日，被告许某坤从中国农业银行宣威板桥分理处销户定期一本通子账户七笔，支取金额合计553932.14元；双方婚后经营的餐馆已变卖均分。庭审中，原告吕某芳坚持要求离婚，次子由原告负责抚养，长子由被告负责抚养，双方互不支付抚养费。双方有共同财产存款平均分割，由被告给付原告27万元，并由被告承担本案诉讼费。被告许某坤同意离婚，但两个孩子要由被告抚养，不需原告支付抚养费，被告一次性补偿原告2万元。因双方就子女抚养问题、共同存款金额及分割意见分歧过大，调解未能达成协议。
（二）裁判结果
法院认为，原告吕某芳与被告许某坤婚后共同生活期间，因家庭琐事发生争吵，致使双方相处不睦；原告吕某芳起诉要求与被告许某坤离婚，被告许某坤亦同意离婚，应准予离婚。原被告双方对婚生子的抚养问题意见分歧，因许启仁现已年满10岁，经法院征求其意见，其表示愿意跟随原告生活，故双方婚生长子由原告负责抚养，次子由被告负责抚养为宜。关于双方的共同财产问题，根据中国农业银行宣威板桥分理处出具的被告许享坤账号明细详单，能够证实被告许享坤自2015年2月4日至3月9日共销户定期一本通子账户七笔，金额合计553932.14元。被告许某坤辩称银行的查询结果有误，系被告重复存取后的金额，但银行的查询记录只有被告的支取记录，没有存现记录，被告许某坤的辩解不能成立；另被告许某坤主张双方只有共同存款27万余元，但已被取出用于双方的家庭开支、日常花费及被告购买彩票，被告未提交证据证实其所支取款项用于正常合理开支，被告的辩解不能成立。故被告许某坤从中国农业银行宣威板桥分理处所支取的553932.14元，系原被告婚姻存续期内取得的合法收入，是原被告双方的夫妻共同财产应予以平均分割，即每人应得276966.07元，原告吕某芳只主张由被告许某坤给付其人民币27万元，依法予以准许。被告许某坤主张原告吕某芳的二哥尚欠双方4000元，但未提交证据加以证实，本案中对该笔债权不予认定。被告许某坤主张双方有价值2万余元的火腿存放于原告吕某芳的父母家中，因被告许某坤没有提交证据加以证实，本案中不予认定。依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十二条、第三十六条、第三十九条之规定，判决：一、准予原告吕某芳与被告许某坤离婚；二、双方婚生长子由原告吕某芳负责抚养，次子由被告许某坤负责抚养；三、由被告许某坤自本判决生效之日起五日内给付原告吕某芳人民币270000元。一审宣判后双方均未上诉。
（三）典型意义
离婚诉讼中，很多当事人担心对方开始隐匿家庭共同财产，其实这个担心并不是多余的，几乎60%以上的案件都会涉及到一方涉嫌隐匿财产的情况。因此，防止对方隐匿财产，应当提前准备。比如，在起诉前，就将家庭共同财产的发票收集好，或请朋友做见证证言，兼采用影像取证技术。另外，对于银行存款、股票基金等，可以在起诉同时申请法院调查或律师出具调查令调查，一旦查出财产下落，可以视情况采取财产保全措施等。本案中，原告申请法院调查收集证据，法院向中国农业银行宣威板桥分理处调取被告许享坤在该行的开户及账号交易明细情况，查明被告许享坤从2月4日至3月9日共销户定期一本通子账户七笔，合计553932.14元。故法院作出前述判决。
四十四、
马某文诉魏某红子女抚养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
马某文诉称：原被告系在外打工期间相识相恋，2012年3月按农村风俗举行婚礼，以夫妻名义同居生活，因未达法定婚龄，故未办理结婚登记。2012年6月原被告生育女儿马某瑶，马某瑶现与原告共同生活。2013年12月，因夫妻感情不和，被告离家出走，外出不归，与原告无任何联系。原告曾找过被告，但一直未找到。原、被告无共同财产，亦未有共同债权、债务。现因原、被告未办理离婚登记，且被告离家出走，外出不归，下落不明，导致女儿马某瑶无法落户，故原告特向人民法院提起诉讼，请求判令：一、解除原、被告的同居关系；二、女儿马某瑶由原告自费抚养。
（二）裁判结果
根据最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释（一）》第五条规定：“未按 婚姻法第八条规定办理结婚登记而以夫妻名义共同生活的男女，起诉到人民法院要求离婚的，应当区别对待：（一）1994年2月1日民政部《婚姻登记管理条例》公布实施以前，男女双方已经符合结婚实质要件的，按事实婚姻处理；（二）1994年2月1日民政部《婚姻登记管理条例》公布实施以后，男女双方符合结婚实质要件的，人民法院应当告知其在案件受理前补办结婚登记；未补办结婚登记的，按解除同居关系处理。”本案中，原、被告于2012年3月8日未经登记即以夫妻名义同居生活，至今未补办结婚登记，应当按照同居关系处理。根据 最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释（二）》第一条规定：“当事人起诉请求解除同居关系的，人民法院不予受理。但当事人请求解除的同居关系属于 婚姻法第三条、第三十二条、第六十四条规定的“有配偶者与他人同居”的，人民法院应当受理并依法予以解除。”本案中，原、被告之间的同居关系并不属于有配偶者与他人同居的情形，不属于人民法院强制判令解除同居关系的情形。但依照法律规定，同居关系不受法律保护。
第二，同居期间生育的非婚生子女，其法律权利和义务比照婚生子女的规定。女儿马某瑶一直由原告抚养，改变其生活环境对其健康成长明显不利，且被告下落不明，故女儿马某瑶由原告抚养有利于其身心健康，便于其合法权益得到保障。原告主张由其自费抚养女儿马楚瑶，不违反法律规定，法院予以支持。
综上，根据最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释（一）》第五条， 最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释（二）》第一条， 最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第二条之规定，判决如下：
原、被告生育的女儿马某瑶由原告马忠文抚养，被告魏某红不支付抚养费。
（三）典型意义
事实婚实际上在我国长期大量存在，在广大农村特别是边远地区，事实婚甚至占当地婚姻相当大的比例。针对案例中这一普遍存在的现象，不仅需要当事人法律意识的提高，也需要法律工作者进行更多更广泛的法律宣传和法律教育，同时要不断促进婚姻登记制度的完善，使公民特别是广大农村边远地区的公民从思想上认识到没有登记的婚姻是不受法律保护的，以及这种同居关系对他们生活的影响，使他们在考虑婚姻缔结时能够认识到通过婚姻登记的方式给自己的婚姻关系予以法律的保护，给自己的婚后生活以法律的保障，减少类似本案例中的情况发生。
四十五、
何某锦诉周某英抚养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
何某锦诉称，原告的父亲何某平与被告周某英于2005年8月经人介绍认识， 2006年12月按农村习俗举行了婚礼，以夫妻名义同居生活。2007年8月1日生育了原告，取名何某锦。2008年8月，被告与原告的父亲何某平闹矛盾离家出走未归，没有尽到母亲的责任。现知晓被告周某英回归原籍另成了家，经济条件比较好，请求判令支付18年的抚养费90000元。
被告周某英辩称现以打工为生，没有能力支付抚养费。
（二）裁判结果
会泽县人民法院审理后认为，被告周某英作为何锦的亲生母亲，在何某锦未成年或不能独立生活期间，有抚养何锦的法定义务。何某锦要求作为亲生母亲的周某英支付抚养费的诉讼请求，法院予以支持。结合原告何某锦的现有生活状况，判决自2015年起至2025年止，由被告周某英每年12月31日前一次性支付原告何某锦抚养费1800元。
（三）典型意义
本案的争议焦点是以没有能力抚养为由拒绝履行抚养义务是否应得到支持？父母对子女有抚养教育的义务，父母不履行抚养义务时，未成年或不能独立生活的子女，有要求父母给付抚养费的权利，这是法律赋予的权利和义务，也是中华民族的优良传统。无论以任何理由，均不能拒绝履行抚养义务，都不会得到支持。
四十六、
吕某珍等二人诉李某有等四人赡养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告李某荣、吕某珍诉称，被告李某有等均是原告夫妇的儿子，两原告与四被告于2008年经五星乡石龙村委会调解，每年由四被告各支付500元的赡养费，李某有三人每年都按期支付给两原告赡养费，李某金一直未支付给二原告赡养费，现起诉判令四被告每年各承担赡养费500元，并共同承担原告生病住院的费用；判令被告李某金补齐从2008年至2015年共8年以来未履行赡养二原告的费用4000元。
被告李向金辩称，二原告在家庭财产的分配上不公，明显偏向其他三被告，并且唆使他们把我的东西拿走，干扰我一家人的生产、生活，只要二原告不要对其家人的生产、生活横加阻碍，才能赡养二原告，不同意补出以前的赡养费。
（二）裁判结果
会泽县人民法院审理认为，父母对子女有抚养教育的义务；子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。二原告主张要求四被告承担生病住院的费用，因二原告未提交证据证实其生病住院，所需的住院费用为多少不确定，法院对其主张不予支持。二原告主张要求被告李某金补出从2008年至2015年的赡养费，因二原告2015年才向本院主张赡养费，本院对其主张部分支持。据此，判决由被告李某有四人每人每年支付给原告李某荣、吕某珍赡养费500元。驳回二原告的其他诉讼请求。
（三）典型意义
本案的争议焦点是以财产分配不公为由拒绝尽赡养义务是否应得到支持？“养儿防老，积谷防饥”，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。这是法律赋予的权利和义务，也是中华民族的优良传统。无论以任何理由，均不能拒绝尽赡养义务，都不会得到支持。
四十七、
赵某花与杨某良离婚纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2009年8月份，原、被告相识并自由恋爱。2010年3月1日按当地习俗举行婚礼并同居生活。2010年3月31日，到婚姻登记机关补办结婚登记手续领取结婚证。婚后夫妻感情一般。2012年2月26日生有长女杨甲；2014年12月24日生有次女杨乙。原、被告婚后时因家务琐事吵闹。原告从2014年12月31日至今居住在原告父母家。被告多次到原告父母家喊原告，原告不跟随其回家。 原告起诉要求与被告离婚；婚生子女杨甲、杨乙由原告抚养；夫妻共同财产一台电视机等归原告所有；共同债务由被告负责偿还。
（二）裁判结果
本案中，原、被告系自由恋爱，婚姻基础较好，并生有两个小孩（尚幼），原、被告双方应加强沟通交流，克服生活中的各种困难，珍惜相互间的夫妻感情，正确处理好其婚姻家庭关系，共同营造和谐家庭关系，为小孩的健康成长提供有利条件。据此，依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十二条之规定，判决不准原告赵某花与被告杨某良离婚。
（三）典型意义
夫妻感情确已破裂是准予离婚的唯一法定理由。认定夫妻感情是否确已破裂，要根据离婚纠纷案件的客观事实来确定。《关于人民法院审理离婚案件如何认定夫妻感情确已破裂的若干具体意见》中规定，应当从婚姻继承、婚后感情、离婚原因、夫妻关系的现状和有无和好的可能等方面综合分析。在本案中，原、被告双方系自由恋爱，婚姻基础较好，婚后双方虽因家务琐事发生吵闹，但只要双方加强沟通交流，克服生活中的各种困难，珍惜相互间的夫妻感情，另一方面双方所生两子女尚幼，从有利于小孩的健康成长出发，综合本案实际夫妻双方方仍有和好可能，据此法院判决原、被告双方不准离婚。
四十八、
孙某某诉田某某离婚纠纷案
（一）基本案情
2010年5月，孙某某与田某某经人介绍相识后，于同年7月30日在秀山县民政局办理了结婚登记。2010年8月，孙某某发现田某某在登记结婚时提供的身份证件是虚假的。事发后，田某某离开孙某某，至今下落不明。双方婚后无子女，无共同债权债务及共同财产。后孙某某诉至秀山土家族苗族自治县人民法院，要求人民法院依法判决原、被告离婚。
（二）裁判结果
经法官审理后认为，感情是缔结婚姻的基础。原、被告相识仅两个月就结婚，其婚姻基础薄弱，婚后共同生活不到一个月就分开，被告至今下落不明，原、被告无法建立起夫妻感情。加之，被告在结婚登记时提供的证件材料均系伪造，其结婚的真实意愿有待商榷。现原告要求离婚，法院应予以支持。依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十二条之规定，判决原告孙某某与被告田某某离婚。
判决送达后双方均未提起上诉，该判决已经发生法律效力。
（三）典型意义
伪造身份信息与他人登记结婚后，提供真实身份信息一方请求解除婚姻关系时，法院应准予其离婚。依据《婚姻登记条例》第九条之规定，可以撤销婚姻登记的仅限于一方受胁迫结婚，婚姻登记程序瑕疵并不在可撤销登记的范围之列。本案中原告孙某某在知晓被告田某某办理结婚登记时是提供的虚假身份信息后，向人民法院起诉离婚，人民法院应当将其作为离婚纠纷立案受理；被告田某某在事情败露后离家出走，至今下落不明，经法院公告送达开庭传票后仍未到庭参加诉讼，因缺乏调解基础，秀山法院依据《婚姻法》第三十二条第三款第（五）项判决解除原被告间的婚姻关系。
四十九、
狄桂霞诉被告李志明、李志刚、李志强、李亚杰赡养纠纷案
（一）基本案情
原告与四被告系母子、母女关系。原告丈夫于2012年去世，2013年11月21日前原告一直与长子李志明一居生活，后与女儿李亚杰一居生活。由于原告丧失了劳动能力，生活需要照料，原告要求四被告每人每月支付150元赡养费。2014年4月至2014年5月原告就医共花医疗费5 985.73元，除去医保报销的费用，剩余2 985.73元四被告每人应承担746元。另查明，原告狄桂霞在桦川县桦树村民委员会有承包田0.27垧，每月有农村低保工资55元。还查明，被告李志强在原告狄桂霞住院期间支付了医药费500元。
（二）裁判结果
桦川县人民法院经审理认为，赡养老人是每个子女应尽的义务，四被告对其母亲均有赡养义务，原告要求四被告每人每月给付赡养费150元，符合农村居民的年生活费支出的标准，本院应予支持。原告要求四被告共同承担前期治疗除去医疗保险报销后剩余的医药费亦符合法律规定，本院应予支持。对于原告主张其今后发生的医疗费用，应由四被告按份负担的请求，因原告主张的医疗费用尚未发生，本院对原告的这一请求不予支持。原告可在治疗实际发生医疗费用后另行主张权利。判决如下：被告李志明、李志刚、李志强、李亚杰自2014年7月1日起每人每月给付原告狄桂霞赡养费150元，此款于每月的30日给付；被告李志明、李志刚、李志强、李亚杰于本判决生效后十日内立即给付原告狄桂霞医药费2 985.73元，由被告李志明、李志刚、李亚杰各自承担746元，被告李志强承担246元（746元-500元）。
（三）典型意义
尊老敬老是中华民族的传统美德，我国《婚姻法》也明确规定，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务，《中华人民共和国老年人权益保护法》也规定，赡养人应当履行对老年人经济上供养、生活上照料和精神上慰籍的义务。农村中部分赡养人的法治意识和道德观念较差，无视甚至不履行对老人的赡养义务。因此，有必要对这一传统美德大力弘扬，形成敬老养老的良好道德风尚，彻底铲除滋生不赡养老人现象的土壤。
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.
扫描二维码添加企业微信
