Judicial Points
In dividing the community property of spouses, courts generally apply the principle of equal distribution, with each spouse entitled to a 50% share. Where one party is at fault causing the breakdown of the marital relationship, some courts may, in light of the circumstances of the case and the severity of fault, grant favorable treatment to the innocent party in the division of community property.
Pursuant to Article 46 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, where domestic violence constitutes the cause of divorce, the innocent party shall have the right to claim compensation for damages. In practice, however, domestic violence is often difficult to establish, let alone mental damage compensation, leaving victims with limited avenues for protection. Since the implementation of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law in 2016, domestic violence has received growing public attention, the criteria for its identification have become clearer and more specific, and perpetrators are more likely to face due punishment.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff Tian Moumou and Defendant Lu Moumou registered for marriage after dating for six months, against her family’s objections and without full knowledge of each other. After marriage, conflicts gradually arose due to living with the defendant’s relatives and heavy household responsibilities.
The plaintiff undertook all housework after work while the defendant showed no concern. Conflicts escalated further due to incompatible lifestyles. Most devastating to the plaintiff was the defendant’s repeated domestic violence. When the plaintiff was eight months pregnant, the defendant committed violence against her; he later apologized and promised to refrain, and the young plaintiff forgave him. The violence continued nonetheless. On one occasion, the defendant pinned the plaintiff on a bed and beat her severely. The plaintiff called the police; forensic examination confirmed a minor injury, and the defendant was placed under administrative detention for three days.
The plaintiff filed for divorce but subsequently withdrew the suit after the defendant begged for forgiveness and a chance to reform.
The defendant did not improve but instead intensified his abuse, committing serious violence multiple times, even in front of the child. The plaintiff again called the police, and forensic examination identified a slight injury.
The plaintiff filed for divorce a second time. The defendant opposed the divorce, knelt in court to apologize, and pleaded for mercy. The court found the marriage salvageable and dismissed the claim.
After more than a decade of abuse and two failed divorce petitions, the plaintiff became disheartened but endured silently to avoid worrying her family.
In 2018, the defendant committed severe domestic violence in front of the child, causing the plaintiff a slight injury. She fled and called the police. The police station issued an Anti-Domestic Violence Warning Letter. The plaintiff finally resolved to leave permanently and file for divorce again after a ten year gap. Court investigation revealed that the day after the plaintiff fled due to violence, the defendant began making large cash withdrawals.
In his defense, the defendant claimed the marital relationship was not irreparably broken, denied domestic violence, and characterized incidents as mutual scuffles over trivial matters. He alleged mutual injury and accused the plaintiff of overreacting. He professed continued affection and begged for reconciliation. He further denied transferring assets and accused the plaintiff of concealing her own properties, arguing her claim for a larger property share lacked factual and legal basis.
Judgment
The divorce between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is hereby granted.
The community property shall be distributed at a ratio of 55% to the Plaintiff and 45% to the Defendant. (Specific allocation details omitted)
The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff mental damage compensation in the sum of RMB 30,000.
Other rulings omitted.
Lawyer’s Analysis
The first key dispute in this case was the establishment of domestic violence and the award of mental damage compensation.
Despite repeated abuse and two prior divorce suits, the plaintiff failed to terminate the marriage or separate from the defendant. This reflected insufficient earlier evidence of domestic violence. Equally importantly, like many survivors, the plaintiff clung to hope due to the defendant’s repeated “sincere” apologies, leading to hesitation in seeking divorce and unfavorable litigation outcomes.
As this was the third divorce application, more than ten years after the second, proof of domestic violence became critical. The defendant flatly denied prior infliction of slight and minor injuries, framing them as accidental harm during quarrels. He argued the plaintiff’s forgiveness and continued cohabitation for a decade negated harm and repeatedly begged for another chance.
Establishing domestic violence is highly complex, often involving conflicting versions. Courts therefore exercise great caution in findings of violence and awards of mental damages. Through thorough preparation, counsel successfully secured judicial recognition of domestic violence and compensation.
First, counsel assisted the plaintiff in collecting evidence including post-abuse photographs, medical examination reports, audio recordings of the defendant and his family verbally acknowledging violence, and the police-issued Anti-Domestic Violence Warning Letter, sufficiently proving the most recent abuse.
Second, counsel confirmed the plaintiff’s firm intent to divorce and provided pretrial coaching to enable her to courageously describe her abuse and resulting harm with unwavering resolve.
Third, during cross-examination, the defendant’s evasive and inconsistent responses to questions regarding the audio recordings and linkage to prior abuse were observed by the collegial panel, strengthening the judicial finding of domestic violence and the defendant’s lack of remorse.
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law, domestic violence includes physical or mental infringement by means of beating, binding, injury, restriction of personal freedom, frequent verbal abuse, or intimidation among family members. The defendant’s repeated beating of the plaintiff during marriage constituted domestic violence. Under Article 46 of the Marriage Law, the innocent party is entitled to damages where domestic violence leads to divorce.
The court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations, found domestic violence established, and upheld her mental damage claim. Considering the defendant’s financial status and local living standards, it awarded RMB 30,000 in mental damage compensation.
The second key dispute was obtaining favorable discretionary division of community property.
The defendant, as the perpetrator of serious domestic violence, was primarily at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. Counsel further proved that family savings largely derived from the plaintiff’s business income and support from her parents, while the defendant’s fixed income could not have generated such wealth. The defendant’s large post separation cash withdrawals suggested concealment or transfer of community property.
When confronted with large withdrawals, the defendant admitted over RMB 1 million in cash available for division to disguise improper disposition. Although the court did not definitively find intentional concealment or transfer, it applied Article 39 of the Marriage Law, which grants courts discretion to divide property in the interests of the children and the wife. The court thus ordered a 55-45 split in the plaintiff’s favor, reflecting legal protection for the innocent party — a relatively rare outcome. The plaintiff expressed satisfaction with the judgment.
In conclusion, domestic violence severely undermines family harmony. Individuals seeking divorce after abuse often do so only after enduring unbearable mistreatment. Resistance requires proper methods: survivors must preserve evidence, seek help from family, neighbors, or police when unable to resist, and avoid excessive compromise that enables further abuse. Where negotiation fails, professional legal representation is essential. Survivors should utilize public authority and legal tools to protect their rights rather than retaliating with violence, which only exacerbates conflict. Zero tolerance toward domestic violence is essential in marriage and family life; indulgence only leads to deeper harm.
With social progress, China has enacted the Anti-Domestic Violence Law and a series of legal mechanisms to protect personal rights, empowering victims to safeguard themselves and their families and effectively upholding their lawful interests.