Marriage Betrothal Gift Dispute: Court Rejects Appeal to Return 28,000 Yuan Engagement Gift in Northern China

Marriage Betrothal Gift Dispute: Court Rejects Appeal to Return 28,000 Yuan Engagement Gift in Northern China

CASE OVERVIEW

A civil court in Northern China has dismissed a petition for retrial in a dispute over engagement gifts, ruling that a father who received 28,000 yuan in betrothal money must return the amount after his daughter ended the relationship. The case, heard by the Intermediate People’s Court, highlights the legal standards for proving the delivery of customary marriage gifts and the weight of witness testimony in Chinese civil proceedings.

CASE BACKGROUND AND FACTS

In March 2004, a woman identified as Ms. Chen was introduced to a man, Mr. Zheng, through her brother-in-law, Mr. Zheng Yi. The following day, the two families met at Mr. Zheng Yi’s home to discuss the engagement. During this meeting, Mr. Zheng delivered a betrothal gift of 28,000 yuan to Ms. Chen’s father, the defendant Mr. Chen. The money was counted by two individuals, Mr. Wang and Mr. Zheng Yi, before being handed over. In return, Mr. Chen gave a traditional “grandchildren silver” gift of 2,800 yuan to Mr. Zheng’s family.

After the engagement, Ms. Chen lived with Mr. Zheng for approximately one week before leaving. In early 2005, Mr. Zheng Yi located Ms. Chen and persuaded her to return to Mr. Zheng’s home for the Chinese New Year. She stayed for only a few days before leaving again. Over the following years, Mr. Zheng attempted through various channels, including Mr. Zheng Yi, to contact both Ms. Chen and Mr. Chen to resolve the matter of the betrothal gift and the marriage arrangement. In March 2010, Mr. Zheng made another attempt to negotiate with Mr. Chen, but no agreement was reached.

COURT PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE

Mr. Chen, the original defendant, filed a petition for retrial after the lower court ruled against him. He argued that he had only received 10 jin of rice wine and 10 jin of noodles during the engagement, not the 28,000 yuan in cash. He claimed that the three witnesses who testified against him had colluded before the trial. According to Mr. Chen, these witnesses were all relatives or acquaintances of Mr. Zheng and had no connection to him.

Mr. Zheng responded that he was unaware of any rice wine or noodles. He stated that the 28,000 yuan betrothal gift was counted by his uncle, Mr. Wang, and then by Mr. Zheng Yi before being given to Mr. Chen. He noted that Mr. Zheng Yi was Mr. Chen’s brother-in-law, not a relative of Mr. Zheng, and did not live in the same village. Mr. Zheng maintained that the three witnesses had not colluded and that the original judgment should stand. Ms. Chen, the daughter, did not submit a defense.

The court reviewed the evidence, including the statements of all parties and the testimony of the three witnesses: Mr. Zheng Yi, Mr. Wang, and a third individual identified as Mr. Zheng Bing. All three witnesses appeared in court and confirmed the delivery of the 28,000 yuan betrothal gift and the return of the 2,800 yuan “grandchildren silver.”

COURT FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT

The court found that Mr. Chen had received 28,000 yuan from Mr. Zheng as a betrothal gift for Ms. Chen and had immediately returned 2,800 yuan as “grandchildren silver,” resulting in a net receipt of 25,200 yuan. The court held that the facts were clearly established and supported by sufficient evidence.

Regarding Mr. Chen’s claim that the witnesses had maliciously colluded before the trial, the court noted that Mr. Chen failed to provide any evidence of such collusion. The court therefore rejected this argument. The original judgment ordering Mr. Chen to return the betrothal gift was upheld as proper.

The court ruled that Mr. Chen’s grounds for retrial were without merit. Pursuant to Article 181 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007), the court issued a ruling dismissing Mr. Chen’s application for retrial.

KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case illustrates several important principles in Chinese civil procedure. The burden of proof lies with the party making an allegation. A party claiming that witnesses have colluded must provide concrete evidence of such collusion. Unsupported assertions are insufficient to overturn a judgment based on witness testimony.

The court also confirmed that oral testimony from multiple witnesses, when consistent and given under oath in court, can constitute sufficient evidence to establish the delivery of customary betrothal gifts. In marriage and engagement disputes, courts will examine the totality of the evidence, including the conduct of the parties after the breakdown of the relationship.

PRACTICAL INSIGHTS

For parties involved in betrothal or engagement gift disputes, this case underscores the importance of documenting the delivery of gifts. While oral testimony can be persuasive, written receipts, bank transfer records, or contemporaneous notes can provide stronger evidence. The case also demonstrates that a party challenging the credibility of witnesses must come forward with specific evidence of misconduct, such as proof of collusion or bias.

Individuals seeking to recover betrothal gifts after a failed engagement should act promptly. The court noted that Mr. Zheng had made repeated attempts over several years to resolve the matter, which may have strengthened his position. Delays in asserting one’s rights can complicate the legal process.

LEGAL REFERENCES

Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007), Article 181, Paragraph 1.

DISCLAIMER

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their situation.