Divorce Damages Research

The 46th clause of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China revised on April 28, 2001 stipulates "The one who has one of the following case to cause divorce: (1) bigamy ;(2) have the spouse who cohabits with other person; (3) enforcement family violence; (4) ill-treat or abandon family member, his or her spouse without fault has right to request damages compensation. " This stipulation signs that the system of compensating for divorce damages has been established in the marriage family legislation of our country. This article elaborates divorce damages compensation problem mainly from seven aspects. The first part elaborates the system of compensating for divorce damages which has been established in our country marriage law from three aspects: (1) its origin; (2) its establish dispute; (3) its meaning. The second part elaborates the basic theory that the fault should undertake the divorce damages compensating responsibility mainly from tort behavior say and breaking promise say. The third part elaborates the form important document to undertake the divorce damages compensating responsibility mainly from its normal important document and special important document. The forth part analyses the subject of legal relationship in divorce damages compensating mainly from the subject who should undertake divorce damages compensation and the subject who have right to request divorce damages compensation. The fifth part elaborates the nature of divorce damages compensation mainly from the connections and difference between divorce damages compensation and spiritual damages compensation. The sixth part elaborates the feasibility to put proof in divorce damages compensation's system mainly from the angle of combination of evidence law and judicial interpretation, then give relative suggestion. The seventh part analyses the amount of spiritual damages compensation, should it be limited clearly? Then give correlative suggestion.The above seven parts elaborate the related problem in divorce damages compensation relatively systematically, and can make readers have a relatively overall understanding for this system. However, there's still some wrongs and unsuitable place in this paper, because of being low in self-theoretical merit base level, not having been thorough in some researches of the problem, and the limitation of the article length. So I am earnestly requested every expert or scholar who read it to criticize it and make a comment on it.