On March 28, Yanggao County People's Court heard and pronounced a case of marriage property dispute in the first instance, and rejected the plaintiff's claim according to the law.

The trial found that on January 30, 2023, the plaintiff Xi XX (the male side) and the defendant Wu XX (the female side) met through the introduction of a marriage agency. During the communication, the man gives the woman one diamond ring. On May 1, 2023, the two parties were engaged. On the day of engagement, the man paid the woman 100000 yuan and a 7.2g gold ring through the staff of the matchmaking service department.

It was also found that on January 31, 2024, the bride would return 100000 yuan and two rings to the matchmaking service department. On the same day, the staff of the matchmaking service department notified Mr. Xi's mother, Mr. Zheng, to take back the above property, but he refused to take it, and still insisted on bringing a lawsuit.

The court held that the bride price of 100000 yuan and two rings paid by the man to the woman in this case should be recognized as the category of bride price. The bride has returned the gift to the matchmaking service department before filing the case. The staff of the matchmaking service department informed the mother of the man to receive the gift, but she refused to receive it. The court also informed again after the case was accepted that the man's mother still refused to receive it. Therefore, the man still insists that the request for the return of the bride price through litigation is unfounded and will not be supported according to law, even if the woman has returned the above-mentioned bride price and notified him to receive it. With regard to the man's claim to return 9977.8 yuan of multiple daily expenses, including 1644 yuan spent on the engagement banquet, the woman disagreed with the amount and cost of the payment. The court held that the above amount was a daily consumption expenditure to maintain and enhance the relationship between the two parties, not a bride price, and it was not supported according to law. Therefore, according to the law, the judgment rejected all claims of the plaintiff Xi and Zheng.

　　 Source and Yanggao WeChat official account

Editor Li Jie

Second instance Yang Tao

Third instance Pang Bo