逃家•離家──同居義務的女性主義法律史考察

Abstract

台灣親屬法在婦運的努力之下，已大致脫去了「夫權/父權獨大」的色彩，不過，先行研究也指出目前的法律仍有限制：從夫（家）居仍為多數家庭的住所安排即屬之。本文藉由梳理立法紀錄、司法判決、報章雜誌文章、婦團主張等描繪同居義務概念的發展，在此基礎上嘗試理解今日規範樣貌從何、如何而來，並提供衡量、想像下一階段法律改革的可能。 本文首先探討同居義務如何從實踐中被明文化，成為民法規範的一部份。其次檢討了1985年的親屬編修正中，雖然使夫妻住所得例外約定，卻不足以破解「現代的休妻權」──丈夫依第1002條主張自己的住所為夫妻住所，妻一旦離家（不論自願或被迫）便違反同居義務，因此夫可訴請履行同居義務；取得履行同居之勝訴判決後，再以此證明妻遺棄夫在狀態中，進而離婚。台灣女人對此的反抗，是1990年代開展的婦運法律改革。這次行動在1998年將第1002條修改為以雙方約定為原則，法院決定為例外；同時提出的分居條款卻失敗，而在2002後成為婦運中辯論的議題之一。從根本上來說，婦運的挑戰並未波及同居義務，此概念持續相對廣泛地被認為是婚姻制度的本質之一，並使其所造成的性別不平等更加隱晦。今日，台灣妻子已經少為「休妻權」所苦，但是新移民卻成為新的一批受害者，且更難反抗；法院更加頻繁的使用概括事由，卻因此忽略了家暴等事實，或者以更嚴格的標準評斷之，而忽略了其中的性別意涵。 藉由梳理歷史資料，我發現過去的親屬法論述中很少注意到同居義務造成的差別影響，不僅肇因於夫妻住所決定權的不平等，更是因為不論是遺棄事由或者概括事由都受限於有責主義，使得夫對於空間的權力（佔據家）得以擴張為離婚的權利，而妻對於空間的無力（逃家、離家以妻為多）則在法律上反映為實踐權利的限制。在此理解下，備受爭議的「事實上分居一段時間」作為裁判離婚事由提案，便只可能是性別平等追求中有限的進展。一來，若仍有苛酷條款，則這樣的規範其實大體上只是明文化以分居事實填充重大事由要件的裁判離婚趨勢。其次，若無苛酷條款，雖然邏輯上可以藉此在從夫居為多數、夫仍在關係中擁有較高權力的狀況下，擴張妻子主張裁判離婚的空間，但此條文的實踐，仍然同時嘉惠了許多有責的夫。誠如運動者長久以來指出的，性別平等的婚姻制度需要透過社會制度全面的改革才能達成。在仍舊不平等的現實限制之下，發展法律策略不但需要更細緻的觀察與思考，更需要創意與凝聚社會共識──歷史性的探究，便提供我們理解現在的基礎，也因而幫助我們思考如何突破現狀。

Taiwanese family law has been generally regarded as gender equal under the effort of women’s movement and their work in advocating law amendments in the 1990s. However, previous works have also indicated that the current law is weak in altering the patriarchal social reality. This study attempts to draw the development of the concept of “duty to cohabit” through examining legislative record, court decisions and newspapers. This way, we may understand the current law better, and imagine the possible amendment in a more creative sense. Starting from Japanese colonial era, I investigated the duty to cohabit reflected in the court decisions and the draft of family laws. The current Civil Code has been implemented in Taiwan since 1945, and it was first amended in 1985. This amendment made mutual agreement between the couples an exception from patrilocality, but it did not changed the practice of divorcing a wife by removing her from the domicile—this way she would be regarded as deserting the husband and therefore he would win the divorce lawsuit. Taiwanese women started their revolution in 1990s by drafting up a new amendment on family law, and mobilizing the public. This time, they argue that domicile should be decided mutually and they attempted to set up a new system for separation. Their first demand was met in 1998, but not the second, which later provoked controversy among these social movement organizations. The duty to cohabit is continuously considered as one of the natures of marriage and not challenged, even by the feminists. This belief has obscured its gender unequal impacts, making divorce difficult for the wives. The difficulty the wives face results from patrilocality that prevents them from asserting their right to divorce when they leave the domicile due to domestic violence or work. Occupying the home therefore means a better chance to divorce the other party or to prevent oneself to be divorced. In this light, making separation a cause to apply for judicial decree on divorce, could only be a limited development of women’s right to divorce. Moreover, this amendment is meant to promote “the freedom to divorce,” but not its equality between husband and wife, and in a patrilocal society, it is likely to benefit more men than women. A critical and historical analysis on the concept hereby provides us an insight into the development of law, and a chance to break the status quo.