【 Case Garden 】 ● Case: Li Ming (pseudonym) and Hua Juan (pseudonym) met through introduction and gave birth to a son after living together. Later, the two held a wedding ceremony, and Hua Juan received a dowry of 160000 yuan from Li Ming, but did not complete the marriage registration procedures. Afterwards, the relationship between the two parties broke down and the cohabitation was terminated. Li Ming sued Zhang Huajuan for returning 80% of the dowry, totaling 128000 yuan. Judgment: After trial, the court found that Li Ming and Hua Juan lived together and held a wedding according to folk customs. During their cohabitation, they gave birth to a son, and related expenses were inevitably incurred due to daily consumption, childbirth, and child rearing. If they still demand the return of the dowry after living together as husband and wife for several years and raising their children together for two years, it is clearly unfair to Hua Juan. In the end, the court ruled to reject Li Ming's lawsuit request. Li Ming appealed against the first instance verdict. The court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original verdict. Statement: The dowry is a common wedding custom in China, but when a marriage breaks down, the issue of returning the dowry often becomes a controversial focus in marriage and family cases. According to Article 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Part of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (1), the court should support the return of dowries in three situations: if both parties have not completed the marriage registration procedures; Both parties have completed the marriage registration procedures but have not yet lived together; Pre marital payment leads to financial difficulties for the payer. In general, if both parties have not completed the marriage registration procedures and have not lived together or have lived together for a short period of time, they usually need to return the dowry. In this case, the court believes that the provision regarding the return of dowries for those who have not completed marriage registration procedures should be limited to situations where they have not lived together. In this case, both the man and the woman lived together for a long time after the wedding ceremony and had children. However, due to the lack of marriage registration procedures, they did not have a legal marital relationship. However, when adjudicating disputes over the return of dowries, the reality of living together as husband and wife should not be ignored. In this case, the court held that although the parties did not register their marriage, they held a wedding ceremony according to local customs, lived together in the name of husband and wife for more than three years, and have already given birth to a son. Rejecting the lawsuit to return the dowry is beneficial for balancing the interests of all parties, especially for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of women. (New Society)