A debt dispute case caused by the return of the betrothal gift

Since ancient times, there has been a custom in China that the man gives the woman a betrothal gift and a betrothal gift when the marriage agreement is initially reached. This betrothal gift and a betrothal gift are commonly known as "betrothal gifts". For a period of time after the founding of New China, betrothal gifts and engagements related to betrothal gifts were criticized and abolished for a time, but they have always existed stubbornly among the people.

A debt dispute case caused by the return of betrothal gifts

After a few months of marriage, a certain (female) had a conflict with her husband Sun and returned to her parents' home. Sun (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed for divorce and asked a certain (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) to return the betrothal gift of 30,000 yuan collected before the marriage, and provided witness testimony to prove that he had paid the defendant a betrothal gift of 30,000 yuan before the marriage. The defendant agreed to divorce, but said that he did not collect so much betrothal gifts at all, and that the plaintiff was trying to blackmail him. What to do?

[Case Analysis]

As the defendant's attorney, I mainly analyze and represent from the following perspectives:

1. Although the plaintiff provided witness testimony, the witness did not appear in court to testify without a legitimate reason. According to Article 55 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation, the witness testimony should not be accepted, that is, the plaintiff cannot prove that he did give the defendant a betrothal gift of 30,000 yuan.

2. Even if the plaintiff gave the defendant a betrothal gift, the defendant should not return it in this case. Because this does not meet the situation stipulated in Article 10 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 (II), that is, although it was paid before marriage, it did not cause the payer to have difficulties in life, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove that the payment of the betrothal gift caused his life difficulties.

Finally, the People's Court adopted the author's agency opinion, ordered the two parties to divorce, and rejected the plaintiff's other claims.