A house divided
The Supreme People's Court's latest judicial interpretation of the mainland's Marriage Law has laid bare gender equity as a political issue. But even when confronted with it, many Chinese people prefer to treat it as invisible. Some feminist groups have tried to organise protests, but they kept these low-key for fear of coming across as shrill and demanding.
The law recognises the shared ownership of assets between husband and wife. And, like other countries with similar laws, it has to deal with the disputes over the splitting of assets that often follow the breakdown of a marriage. Before the latest interpretation, the rule was that all assets acquired after marriage would be jointly owned, and personal assets before marriage belonged to the individual, though if they were not notarised in a pre-nuptial agreement they risked being treated as shared assets.
Soaring real estate prices have made property an important component in a marriage; increasingly, it has become a key condition for getting married, and a major point of contention in a divorce. Thus, with this judicial interpretation that spells out clearly the ownership of a marital home, the courts are hoping to rid themselves of a major headache.
Two clauses are the most controversial. The first is that the person who made the down payment for the marital home shall own it, and benefit from any appreciation in its value thereafter. The spouse who contributed towards its mortgage shall be compensated, though the rule does not say how or how much. Second, a property that was a gift from one person's parents after marriage shall belong to that person. Previously, all gifts to a couple - whether a property or a box of chocolates from a friend - belonged to the couple, unless otherwise specified.
A spokesperson for the Supreme People's Court said the interpretation was made to protect personal assets. Many young people today use their parents' savings to buy a home to get married. If, in the event of a divorce, the property was split equally between the spouses, it would be extremely unfair to the parents, the reasoning goes.
The interpretation is seen as protecting men's interests, since it is the men and their family who generally pay for the property, before or after a marriage. Besides, some people say, it is time something was done to tackle the 'materialistic' attitude of many young women; these gold-diggers would learn to marry for love, and not for money.