Go to Content Area :::

Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) Logo

Home Sitemap 中文版


Home > Decisions > Docket Search > Before 2022
  • Interpretation
  • No.18
  • Date
  • 1953/05/29
  • Issue
    • Does a mere refusal to cohabitate constitute willful abandonment under the Article 1052, Subparagraph 5 of the Civil Code?
  • Holding
    •        At the Ninth Meeting of the Grand Justices Council, it was resolved on the first ad hoc proposal: “Petitions submitted by the Central or local government agencies pertinent to Interpretations of the Judicial Yuan that occurred prior to the promulgation of the Constitution may be considered as in compliance with Article 4 of the Rules Governing the Adjudication of the Grand Justices Council.” In accordance with the above resolution, the present case that derived from the Supreme Court’s questions on Interpretation Yuan-Tze No. 750 must be resolved. 
    •        After the final and binding judgment on cohabitation is rendered, if one of the spouses nevertheless does not perform the obligation of cohabitation without proper cause while letting the status quo continue, it may be considered as meeting the requirement under Article 1052, Subparagraph 5, of the Civil Code. The submitted record indicated that after marrying A, B went to stay with her family and never returned [to A]. Even after repeated requests from A*s representatives, B still did not go back to live with A. Such situation may not be abruptly considered willful abandonment of the other party as indicated by the above provision. 
    • *Translated by Professor Andy Y. Sun.
  • Reasoning
    Back Top