文章
时政

丰县涉拐判决文书一览——被拐女性起诉离婚就驳回

菜单
  1. 布兰妮   偶尔沉默偶尔水,偶尔精分偶尔雷

    叹为观止。

  2. 奭麦郎 岿然宽衣
    奭麦郎   满辗鲜衣八岿合艰萨逆疯金颐提酵甚瞻冰坡秩歼殊淆冯

    我见过不少已经移民的华人依然对美国的高离婚率颇有微词,但事实上有离婚自由又何尝不是一种解放?在丰县这种人间地狱拥有离婚自由就像抓住了救命稻草

  3. 布兰妮   偶尔沉默偶尔水,偶尔精分偶尔雷

    并非法律专业,尝试翻译涉拐判决文书:

    赵某与尹某离婚纠纷一审民事判决书

    Zhao v. Yin: Civil judgment on a dispute over divorce

    发布日期:2014-11-07

    Published: July 7th, 2014

    江苏省丰县人民法院民事判决书

    Civil judgment of People's Court, Feng County of Jiangsu Province

    2014 丰华民初字第0526号

    2014 Feng County Civil Case#0526

    原告赵某,农民。

    Plantiff, Zhao, Farmer.

    被告尹某,汉族,农民。

    Defendant, Yin, ethnicity Han, Farmer.

    原告赵某诉被告尹某离婚纠纷一案,本院于2014年10月13日立案受理,依法由审判员曾杰适用简易程序,于2014年11月4日公开开庭进行了审理。原告赵某、被告尹某到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

    The case of Zhao v. Yin on their dispute over divorce was filed to this court on October 13, 2014. According to the law, judge Jie Zeng applied simple procedures, and held the public hearing on November 4, 2014. Both Zhao and Yin attended the hearing. This case has now been concluded.

    原告赵某诉称:原告娘家在四川绵阳市,1984年9月被拐卖至丰县;XXXX年X月,双方按照农村的风俗举行了结婚仪式,并开始以夫妻的名义同居生活。1986年12月生大女儿尹春芳,1987年10月生二女儿尹春艳,1989年10月生龙凤胎儿子尹春响、三女儿尹春兰。由于原告被告婚姻基础差,婚后没有培养出夫妻感情,现已分居5年多,夫妻感情确已破裂,故要求依法判令原告、被告离婚。

    The plaintiff Zhao claimed: Her hometown was Mianyang, Sichuan Province. On September 1984, she was kidnapped from her hometown and sold to Feng County. XXXX (year and month hidden), Zhao and Yin held a wedding ceremony in accordance with rural customs, and began to live together in the name of husband and wife. On December 1986, Zhao gave birth to the eldest daughter Chunfang. On October 1987, she gave birth to the second daughter Chunyan. On October 1989, she gave birth to twins, son Chunxiang, and the third daughter Chunlan. Due to the poor foundation of their marriage, she and Yin did not cultivate any marital love, and they have now been separated for more than five years. Their marital relationship has broken down, and thus she is now filing for divorce.

    被告尹某辩称:原告被告系经人介绍认识,原告系自愿跟随被告至丰县生活。告辩人不同意原告起诉离婚的诉求。双方共同生活三十多年,儿女都已结婚成家。原被告之间的感情没有破裂,且为了子女,为了维系家庭的完整,坚决不同意离婚。

    The defendant Yin argued: He and Yin met via a matchmaker, and Zhao voluntarily came to Feng County to live with him. He firmly disagrees to divorce. He and Zhao have lived together for more than thirty years, and their children all got married. Their marital relationship has not broken down, and for the sake of their children, for the integrity of the family, he strongly disagrees to divorce.

    经审理查明:原、被告经人介绍认识,后于xxxx年xx月举行结婚仪式并共同生活,婚后生育四子女:1985年农历十二月生长女尹春芳,1987年4月生次女尹春艳,1990年农历正月生三女尹春兰,1990年农历正月生长子尹春响。原被告共同生活三十余年,共同养育四子女,婚后感情尚可。近年来,因原告外出打工,被告经常喝酒,双方缺乏沟通,互相不信任,常因琐事产生矛盾

    The court found that: Zhao and Yin were introduced to each other, held a marriage ceremony in XXXX (year and month hidden) and started living together. They had four children: First daughter Chunfang, born in December 1985; second daughter Chunyan, born in April 1987; third daughter Chunlan, born in January 1990; and first son Chunsong, born in January in 1990 (all dates are based on lunar calendar). Zhao and Yin had lived together for more than 30 years, raised four children together, and had an acceptable relationship after the marriage. In recent years, Zhao went to another city to work, and Yin drinks a lot. Therefore they lacked communication and mutual distrust, and had frequent conflicts due to trivial matters.

    以上事实,有原、被告的陈述,丰县华山镇长庄村民委员会出具的证明材料所证实,本院予以确认。

    The above facts came from the plaintiff's and the defendant's statements, and were verified by the materials issued by the Villagers' Committee in Zhenzhang village, Feng County.

    本案的争议焦点为:原、被告之间夫妻感情是否确已破裂,是否符合法定的解除婚姻关系的条件。

    The focus of this dispute is: Whether Zhao and Yin's marital relationship has indeed broken down, and whether they met the statutory conditions for dissolution of marriage.

    本院认为:原、被告于1984年开始以夫妻名义共同生活,虽未办理结婚登记,但已构成事实婚姻。原、被告婚后感情尚可,共同生活近三十年,辛苦养育四子女,双方对家庭、子女均有较大的付出。目前原、被告已人到中年,四子女均已长大成人,双方应珍惜多年的夫妻感情,相互扶持,彼此陪伴,共同维护家庭的完整。近年来,由于双方缺乏沟通与交流,互相不理解,以致影响了二人的夫妻感情。在今后的生活中,双方应多做自我批评,互谅互让,彼此关心体贴,多为对方利益着想,双方还是有和好的可能的。原告要求与被告离婚,未提供证明双方感情破裂的证据,本院不予支持。据此,依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十二条之规定,判决如下:

    The court believes that: Zhao and Yin began to live together in 1984 in the name of husband and wife. Although they had never registered for marriage, their relationship constitutes a de facto marriage. Zhao and Yin had an acceptable relationship after marriage, had lived together for nearly thirty years, and worked hard to raise their four children. At present, Zhao and Yin are middle-age woman and man, their four children have grown up, and they should cherish their long-time relationship. They should give each other support and company, and maintain the integrity of the family. In recent years, due to the lack of communication between the two parties, they lack mutual understanding, which affected their marital relationship. In the future, the two parties should look into their own faults, understand and tolerate each other, and provide mutual care and consideration. If so they can still be a good couple. Zhao filed for divorce but did not provide evidence to prove the breakdown of their relationship. Therefore the court does not support her claim. In accordance with the provisions of article 32 of the marriage law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows.

    不准予原告赵某与被告尹某离婚。

    Zhao and Yin's divorce is not granted.

    案件受理费120元,由原告赵某负担。

    The case filing fee of 120 yuan is Zhao's responsibility.

    如不服本判决,可在判决书送达之日十五日内,向本院递交上诉状,并按对方当事人的人数提副本,上诉于江苏省徐州市中级人民法院,同时向该院预交上诉案件受理费。

    If the plaintiff does not accept this judgment, she may, within fifteen days from the date of service of the judgment, submit an appeal to this court with the number of copies based on the number of relevant parties. She can appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, and prepay the appeal fee.

    审判员 曾杰

    Judge, Jie Zeng

    2014年11月7日

    November 7, 2014

    书记员 刘亭亭

    Clerk, Tingting Liu

  4. 刁远凹凸  

    现在徐州狗链女事件,线上线下已经有几十亿人次浏览、转发、发声,但政府删文章、删帖、封号、撤热搜、抓救助者。整个事件已经逐渐清晰,就是拐卖妇女儿童(其中包含强奸、轮奸、虐待、杀害、政府给予证件、法院给予保护、学术机构伪造DNA鉴定)是一条庞大的产业链利益链,地方政府做帮凶,中央政府包庇纵容。中共都已经如此邪恶了。中国人该怎么办?

  5. 花鸟风月 绿茶
    花鸟风月   无论如何,都请你不要抛弃掉清澈的眼神。

    他们许诺给他们的人民一个童话的世界。

    后来他们的确没有违背他们的诺言——

    人民生活在黑童话里。

  6. xxyy   中华民国敌占区人

    倡议,不买徐州商家的商品,也不卖给徐州东西,不和徐州相关一方的合作。不能指望政府给予公正的审判,也不可能出包青天。每一个有良知的人要作出自己的审判,虽然力量很小,但也是自己心里的审判,不和徐州合作。

  7. 布兰妮   偶尔沉默偶尔水,偶尔精分偶尔雷

    王文群与邢后永离婚纠纷一审民事判决书

    Wenqun Wang v. Houyong Xing: Civil judgment on a dispute over divorce

    发布日期:2013-12-12

    Published: Dec 12th, 2013

    江苏省丰县人民法院民事判决书

    Civil judgment of People's Court, Feng County of Jiangsu Province

    2013 丰华民初字第0695号

    2013 Feng County Civil Case#0695

    原告王文群。

    Plantiff, Wenqun Wang.

    被告邢后永。

    Defendant, Houyong Xing.

    原告王文群诉被告邢后永离婚纠纷一案,本院于2013年11月29日立案受理,依法由审判员黄涛适用简易程序于2013年12月9日公开开庭进行了审理。本案原告王文群、被告邢后永及其委托代理人王志辉均到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

    The case of Wenqun Wang v. Houyong Xing on their dispute over divorce was filed to this court on November 29, 2013. According to the law, judge Tao Huang applied simple procedures, and held the public hearing on December 9, 2013. Wenqun Wang (plaintiff), Houyong Xing (defendant) and Xing's attorney Zhihui Wang attended the hearing. This case has now been concluded.

    原告王文群称:原告系四川重庆人。1987年10月,原告被人拐卖到丰县卖与被告后同居生活,1989年2月1日生一女邢某。因双方婚前缺乏了解,被告脾气暴躁,经常打骂原告,2010年9月,原告离家出走,双方分居三年之久,夫妻感情确已破裂。原告要求离婚。

    The plaintiff Wang claimed: Her hometown was Chongqing, Sichuan Province. On October 1987, she was kidnapped and sold to Xing in Feng County. On February 1, 1986, Wang gave birth to a daughter. They had no knowledge of each other before marriage. Xing had a bad temper, often scolding and hitting Wang. In September 2010, Wang left home and the two parties have since been separated for three years. Their marital relationship has broken down, and thus she is now filing for divorce.

    被告邢后永辩称:被告和原告经人介绍相识后结婚,1989年2月1日生一女邢某,1991年农历正月初八生一子邢某某,后邢某某被原告卖与他人。因原告远离故乡和父母,被告非常珍惜原告,且家庭支出都由原告掌控,由原告支配。双方感情很好,为了家庭和孩子,被告坚决不同意离婚。

    The defendant Xing argued: He and Wang met via a matchmaker, and got married afterwards. On February 1, 1989, Wang gave birth to a daughter. On January 8, 1991 (lunar calendar), Wang gave birth to a son, whom Wang sold to other people. Because Wang was far away from her hometown and parents, Xing cherished her dearly, and Wang had control of all family expenses. They have a great relationship. For the sake of the family and their child, Xing strongly disagrees to divorce.

    经审理查明:1987年10月,原、被告经人介绍相识后同居生活,1989年2月1日生一女邢某,1991年农历正月初八生一子某某。共同生活期间,双方经常因琐事发生争吵,2011年11月9日,原告短信告知被告后离家出走。

    The court found that: In October 1987, Wang and Xing were introduced to each other and started living together. They had a daughter on February 1, 1989, and a son on January 8, 1991 (lunar calendar). When they lived together, Wang and Xing often quarreled over trivial matters. On November 9, 2011, Wang left home after informing Xing via a text message.

    庭审中,被告邢后永陈述婚生子邢某某被原告卖与他人,但无证据证明。

    During the trial, Xing stated that Wang sold their son to other people, but no evidence was available.

    以上事实,有原、被告庭审陈述及邢金芝证人证言予以证实。以上证据均经当庭质证,本院予以确认。

    The above facts came from the testimonies of the plaintiff, the defendant, and the witness Jinzhi Xing. The statements have been cross-examined and confirmed in court.

    本案的争议焦点是:原、被告之间感情是否确已破裂,是否符合解除婚姻关系的法定要件。

    The focus of this dispute is: Whether Wang and Xing's marital relationship has indeed broken down, and whether they met the statutory conditions for dissolution of marriage.

    本院认为:人民法院判定婚姻案件当事人离婚与否的法定界限是感情是否确已破裂。原、被告结婚20余年且生育子女,其婚姻基础牢固,婚后感情较好。双方因家庭琐事偶有争执在所难免,婚生女邢金芝也当庭陈述父母感情很好,不同意父母离婚,只要双方互相理解、互相宽容,多为孩子和对方着想,共同维护平等、和睦、文明的婚姻家庭关系,仍是一个幸福美满的家庭。本院从双方的婚前基础、婚后感情、离婚的真实原因及有无和好可能等诸方面综合分析,以不离为宜。依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第三十二条之规定,判决如下:

    The court believes that: The legal condition to determine whether a divorce should be granted is whether their relationship has indeed broken down. Wang and Xing had been married for more than 20 years and had children together. The base of their marriage was strong, and they had a good marital relationship. The two parties had occasional arguments, which is inevitable. Their daughter Jinzhi Xing also stated in court that her parents had a good relationship, and she did not agree to their divorce. As long as both parties understand and tolerate each other, and are more considerate of their child and each other, they can maintain an equal, harmonious and civilized marriage, and still have a happy family. Based on the pre-marital situations, post-marital relationship, the reasons for divorce and the possibility of reconciliation, the court decides that a divorce was not appropriate. In accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows.

    不准予原告王文群与被告邢后永离婚。

    Wenqun Wang and Houyong Xing's divorce is not granted.

    案件受理费120元(已减半收取),由原告王文群负担。

    The case filing fee of 120 yuan (with 50% discount) is Wang's responsibility.

    如不服判决,可在判决书送达之日起十五日内,向本院递交上诉状,并按对方当事人的人数提交副本,上诉于江苏省徐州市中级人民法院,同时向该院预交上诉案件受理费。

    If the plaintiff does not accept this judgment, she may, within fifteen days from the date of service of the judgment, submit an appeal to this court with the number of copies based on the number of relevant parties. She can appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, and prepay the appeal fee.

    审判员 黄涛

    Judge, Tao Huang

    2013年12月12日

    December 12, 2013

    书记员 岳欢欢

    Clerk, Huanhuan Yue