Article 1059
Husbands and wives have an obligation to support each other.
The party in need of maintenance has the right to demand maintenance from the other party if the other party fails to perform the maintenance obligation.
I. Purpose of this Article
This article deals with the obligation of husband and wife to support each other.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
Article 8 of the original Marriage Law of 1950 stipulates: "Husbands and wives have the obligation to love and respect each other, help each other, support each other, live in harmony and unity, work and produce, raise children, and work together for the happiness of the family and the construction of a new society." Article 14 of the original Marriage Act of 1980 inherits the principle of the obligation of husband and wife to support each other established in article 8 of the former Marriage Act of 1950, which stipulates that "husband and wife shall have the obligation to support each other. If one party fails to fulfill the maintenance obligation, the party in need of maintenance has the right to demand that the other party pay maintenance. "The original Marriage Law, as amended in 2001, did not make any adjustments to the content of this article, but continued to follow the content of the aforementioned article 14 and provided it in article 20.
This article is derived from Article 20 of the original Marriage Law, which was amended in 2001, and is not substantially different from it, but it has been fine-tuned in terms of text, amending the word "mutual" to "mutual" in paragraph 1 of article 20, and amending the word "pay" to "pay" in paragraph 2, so as to make the wording more precise. At the same time, the phrase "the party in need of maintenance" in article 20, paragraph 2, is brought forward in this article to further highlight that the premise of the application of this paragraph is that one of the spouses is in need of maintenance. However, none of the above amendments constitutes a change to the substantive content of the provisions.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article regulates the mutual maintenance of spouses.
Spouses have the right to support each other, and the other spouse has such an obligation. This article only provides for the right to mutual support, but not the right to mutual support. The complete right to mutual support and assistance includes not only the right to support, but also the rights and obligations of husband and wife to cooperate with each other and help each other.
Support between husband and wife refers to the fact that husband and wife support each other materially and in life. In this right and duty, the husband and wife are completely equal, and the spouse who has the ability to support him must consciously assume this obligation, and the other spouse must fulfill this obligation when one of them loses the ability to work. If one party violates this obligation, the other party has the right to demand performance, and may request the relevant organization to mediate, or may file a lawsuit with the court for payment of alimony.
The obligation of mutual support between spouses requires that husband and wife support each other's wishes and activities, and work together and cooperate with each other in family matters. When one spouse is in danger, the other spouse has the obligation to help and rescue. Violations of this obligation to cooperate and help each other are generally regarded by the law as a legal ground for divorce. The "righteousness" in the ancient legislation of the mainland contains this meaning. Some countries provide that one spouse has the right to restrict or prohibit the other spouse from engaging in acts harmful to him/herself, for example, if one spouse commits an act harmful to the other spouse and constitutes an unlawful offense, the other spouse has the right to defend himself/herself.
4. Cases
Wu v. Zhou, a dispute over child support
Facts: After Wu and Zhou completed the marriage registration, Wu suffered from emotional psychosis and was identified as a person with limited civil capacity, and his guardian was his father Wu Jia. During Wu's illness for nearly ten years, Zhou worked abroad all the year round, and Wu's life and medical care were obviously lacking, so Wu appealed to the court for Zhou to pay 2,000 yuan in alimony every month. The court of first instance held that Zhou had been working abroad all the year round and should fulfill a certain obligation to support Wu, and that it was appropriate for Zhou to pay Wu 400 yuan per month in support of Wu, taking into account Wu's actual situation and the actual living standards of the locality, and considering Zhou's need to raise his legitimate child alone. Wu appealed on the grounds that alimony was too low. The court of second instance held that the first-instance judgment that Zhou should pay Wu 400 yuan per month was not enough to meet Wu's actual living and medical needs, and comprehensively considered the actual situation of both parties, and determined that it was appropriate for Zhou to pay Wu 1,500 yuan per month.
5. Analysis
According to Article 20 of the Marriage Law, Wu has the right to request Zhou to pay alimony because he suffers from emotional psychosis. Regardless of the actual circumstances of the marriage and the emotional status of the parties, the maintenance of husband and wife is both the right and the obligation of both parties, and therefore the act of non-performance is necessarily a tort. The focus of this case is whether Zhou should pay maintenance to Wu. Wu and Zhou established a legal husband and wife relationship after completing the marriage registration, and the two parties had the obligation to support each other, so after Wu was diagnosed with emotional psychosis, Zhou had the obligation to support Wu. During the existence of the marital relationship between Wu and Zhou, whether Zhou worked in other places all the year round, which made the relationship between the husband and wife poor, or Wu Jia, the father of Wu, served as Wu's guardian and was responsible for taking care of the sick Wu, it was both Zhou's right and Zhou's obligation to support Wu, so Wu had the right to require Zhou to pay alimony.