[5] A heart for household compensation, a pair of hands warming the family.

Compiled from: China.com News, Sina Finance

Case review

Mr. Chen and Ms. Wang met and fell in love in 2010, registered their marriage in 2015, and had a son, Chen Xiao, after marriage. Their relationship was still acceptable after marriage until conflicts began in 2018, and they have been living separately since July of the same year. In November of the same year, Chen Xiao went to live with Ms. Wang.

 

In 2019, Mr. Chen filed for divorce in court, but later withdrew the lawsuit, and then filed for divorce again in 2020. Mr. Chen requested the court to grant a divorce, have the child entrusted to his custody, and to divide the joint property and debts.

Regarding this, the woman, Wang, believes that after marriage, she not only took care of the children but also handled housework, while the man, Chen, was only concerned with his job and indifferent to other household matters. Moreover, Chen lived with a third party during the marriage, causing her significant mental harm. Based on this, Wang requested the division of property and a ruling that Chen compensate a total of 160,000 yuan for material and mental damages.

[1] Court Opinion

The court’s first-instance judgment ruled that Mr. Chen and Ms. Wang divorce, the child Chen Xiaomou shall be raised by Ms. Wang, Mr. Chen shall pay 2,000 yuan monthly for child support, and has visitation rights; their joint property shall be evenly divided; at the same time, it was also ruled that Mr. Chen shall pay Ms. Wang 50,000 yuan as compensation for household labor.

Relevant legal provisions

Article 1088 of the Civil Code
If one spouse bears more obligations due to raising children, caring for elderly family members, assisting the other spouse with work, or other burdens, they have the right to request compensation from the other spouse upon divorce, and the other spouse should provide compensation. The specific method is to be agreed upon by both parties; if no agreement is reached, it shall be decided by the people's court.

[1] The author's perspective
The "housework compensation" in this case is a major highlight. Before the enactment of the Civil Code, Article 40 of the Marriage Law stipulated that "if a couple agrees in writing that the property acquired during the marriage belongs to each individually, and one party has undertaken more obligations such as raising children, caring for the elderly, or assisting the other party in work, that party has the right to request compensation from the other upon divorce, and the other party shall provide such compensation." However, in most families in our country, things are not so clearly divided, and property is often jointly owned by the couple. This means that even if one party raises a claim for compensation for housework upon divorce, it may not be guaranteed to be fully implemented.

 

This household labor compensation system not only takes into account the hard work of full-time wives but also considers the contributions of 'stay-at-home husbands.' Regardless of gender, the party who contributes more to family affairs can claim this compensation upon divorce. Additionally, this compensation system fully reflects a sense of humanity. If one party has reduced their social labor value for the sake of the family, or even sacrificed their ability to survive socially, they should still receive some basic compensation when the family ultimately falls apart. We cannot let the person who once warmed the household end up heartbroken.