打某大丈夫？「不堪同居之虐待」的法律史

Abstract

本文從法規範、司法實踐和社會觀感三個面向，探討了中華民國民法第1052條第1項第3款的離婚事由「夫妻一方對他方為不堪同居之虐待」，從清治時期、日治時期、民國中國時期乃至戰後臺灣的變遷態樣，並試圖呈現此變遷過程中的性別與家庭圖像。 於清治時期，尚未存在裁判離婚制度，遑論夫妻一方得以「不堪同居之虐待」為由，向他方請求離婚。《大清律例》將夫妻間的暴力行為，規範於「妻妾毆夫條」中。該條文區分「夫毆妻」以及「妻毆夫」的情形，賦予不同程度的懲罰。在夫毆妻未至折傷時，並不受追究；至折傷以上時，則視夫妻是否願意兩願離。反之，妻一旦毆夫便會受到懲罰，且夫可以單方面選擇是否離妻，等同肯認丈夫於「非折傷」的範圍內，得以暴力行為管教妻子。在司法實踐上，妻子向官府呈控的目的，是為了鞏固自身在家庭中的地位，而非請求離異或是處罰丈夫的暴力行為。縣正堂則傾向勸諭當事人尋求族親協調，試圖息事寧人。當時的社會觀感對於婚姻暴力，呈現混雜的認知。有譴責毆妻的丈夫者，亦有認為丈夫寵妾憎妻為常態者。 日治時期，日本政府將近代西方法體系引入臺灣。法院透過判決創設清治時期所無的「裁判離婚制度」，並引入明治民法813條第5款的離婚事由「受配偶重大侮辱或不堪同居之虐待」。該款事由以中性化的文字呈現，但在司法實踐上，法院對「不堪同居之虐待」的認定極度性別化，而對「重大侮辱」的認定則兼有改造臺人舊慣的意味。當時，法院判決與社會觀感皆肯認了丈夫對於未符合賢妻良母形象的妻子擁有懲戒權。在社會觀感中，則可進一步觀察到，社會對於施暴妻子加以譴責，認為其破壞了家庭秩序；對於受暴的丈夫，則抱持著訕笑的態度，從而建構出夫尊妻卑的家庭圖像。 民國中國時期，於中華民國民法起草時，「不堪同居之虐待」被列為裁判離婚事由之一。起草者對於「不堪同居之虐待」的想像，受到《大清律例》的影響，將「不堪同居之虐待」的部分態樣，解為丈夫強迫妻子犯姦等破壞妻子貞節的情形。在司法實踐上，於民法典尚未完備時，大理院處於新舊規範交替的時期，其民事審判的形式依據為《大清現行刑律》民事有效部分。部分的大理院判決，確實遵循了《大清現行刑律》民事有效部分「夫毆妻，至折傷以上，方可離異」與「妻毆夫，夫即可離異」的規定。然而，大理院民事審判的依據，實質上已受到大清民律第1次草案中裁判離婚事由的影響。大理院站在維護妻子的立場，在丈夫毆打妻子未至折傷時，承認妻子得以「重大侮辱」以及「不堪同居之虐待」請求離婚。此外，尚有大理院判例以「妻子一時氣忿，導致丈夫受傷而事屬輕微者，不成立不堪同居之虐待。」保障妻子不受丈夫任意請求離婚。前述大理院對於「重大侮辱」以及「不堪同居之虐待」的相關見解，為1927年成立的最高法院所延續，並且影響了戰後臺灣的司法實踐。 戰後，中華民國民法施行在臺。司法實踐與社會觀感出現了轉向，不再視丈夫的暴力為理所當然，但兩者所建構的家庭圖像卻與日治時期相去不遠。在規範方面，以中性文字呈現的民法第1052條第1項第3款「不堪同居之虐待」，在歷次以男女平等為目標的民法親屬編修法過程中，並未成為修正標的。在司法實踐方面，法院於引用最高法院23年上字第4554號判例，判斷夫妻一方對他方的行為是否成立「不堪同居之虐待」時，顯露了對於受暴女性的性別偏見。於1995年，釋字第372號解釋對於最高法院23年上字第4554號判例作出合憲性解釋，認為該判例非指夫妻一方對他方擁有懲戒權。但本號釋字作成之後，法院的判決仍持續對受暴女性存有偏見（至2005年）。在社會觀感方面，由戰後初期至今（2022年），對於婚姻暴力的看法漸趨多元與中性。然而，與婚姻暴力相關的報導中，卻以疾病或惡習等因素淡化施暴男性的責任。同時，報導中仍殘存對受暴女性行為不檢的譴責，以及應善盡妻子義務的道德說教。此外，受暴男性的經驗逐漸受到重視，但也不乏質疑受暴男性為何「打不過女人」的聲音；對於施暴的女性形象描寫，則經常出現「最毒婦人心」等本質化的負面描述。從而，司法實踐與社會觀感皆維持了過往認為丈夫在家庭中作為強勢一方的看法。 本文藉由上述考察，觀察到夫妻間暴力行為的規範從清治時期的性別差異，隨著日治時期近代法體系的引入，逐漸轉變為性別平等的中性敘述，並延續至中華民國時期。然而，「不堪同居之虐待」作為不確定法律概念，需透過司法實踐逐漸充實其內涵。多數判決固然以性別化的見解，鞏固了夫尊妻卑的家庭秩序。這使得清治時期丈夫對妻子的懲戒權，在司法實踐的變遷中，轉化為妻子的「行為不檢」，得作為丈夫施暴的合理依據。然而，也有法官運用「不堪同居之虐待」的解釋空間，試圖改革「不堪同居之虐待」在運作上的性別偏見。本文主張，上述司法實踐的複雜性，與不同時期的社會觀感對於婚姻暴力當事人的看法相互交織，描繪出跨時代婚姻秩序的變動圖像。

This study examines the grounds for divorce under Article 1052, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code of the Republic of China, specifically "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation," through legal regulations, judicial practices, and societal perceptions. The investigation spans the Qing Dynasty, Japanese Colonial Period, Republican China, and post-war Taiwan to illustrate evolving gender and family dynamics. During the Qing Dynasty, contested divorce was non-existent, and "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" was not a recognized ground. The Great Qing Legal Code addressed marital violence under the "Wife and Concubine Beating Husband" provision, distinguishing between "husband beating wife" and "wife beating husband" with different outcomes. A husband was not prosecuted for beating his wife unless it caused serious injury, while a wife's violence was punishable, and the husband could unilaterally seek divorce. This regulation acknowledged the husband's ability to discipline his wife through violence if it did not cause serious injury. In judicial practice, wives reported marital violence to the magistrate primarily to secure their own status within the family rather than seeking divorce or punishment for their husbands. The magistrate would advise mediation rather than citing The Great Qing Legal Code. Social perceptions were mixed, with some condemning abusive husbands and others accepting preferential treatment of concubines over wives as normal. During the Japanese Colonial Period, the Japanese introduced modern Western legal systems to Taiwan. The courts established a contested divorce system that did not exist during the Qing Dynasty and incorporated the Meiji Civil Code’s grounds for divorce, including "Grave Insult or Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation." Despite the neutral language, the court's interpretation of "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" is highly gendered, while "Grave Insult" implies reforming traditional Taiwanese customs. Courts and societal views affirmed a husband's power over wives who did not conform to the ideal of a "good wife and devoted mother." Society condemned violent wives for disrupting family order and ridiculed abused husbands, reinforcing a gender hierarchy with the husband dominant and the wife subordinate. In Republican China, the drafters of the Civil Code included "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" as a ground for contested divorce, influenced by The Great Qing Legal Code, interpreting certain forms of mistreatment as actions such as forcing a wife into prostitution. Judicial practice before the Civil Code’s full implementation saw the Ta-Li-Yuan following the Effective Civil Provisions of the Current Criminal Law of the Qing Dynasty. Some judgements adhered to these provisions, allowing divorce only if the husband caused severe injury but permitting divorce for any violence by the wife. However, influenced by the Draft Civil Code of the Great Qing Dynasty, the Ta-Li-Yuan issued judgements protecting wives, allowing divorce for "Grave Insult" and "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" even without severe injury. Additionally, the Ta-Li-Yuan held that "minor injuries from a wife’s temporary anger do not constitute Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation," protecting wives from arbitrary divorce requests. The Ta-Li-Yuan's protective stance was continued by the Supreme Court established in 1927, impacting post-war Taiwan's judicial practices. Post-war, the implementation of the Civil Code of the Republic of China in Taiwan introduced "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" as a divorce ground under Article 1052, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3. Because this provision is neutrally worded, it wasn't revised in gender equality-focused family law amendments. Judicial practices, referring to Supreme Court 23 Shang-Tzu No. 4554, often displayed gender bias by considering a wife’s "improper conduct" as a justification for a husband's violence. J. Y. Interpretation No. 372 (February 24, 1995) upheld the constitutionality of this precedent, noting the possibility of "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" but not endorsing a disciplinary right of one spouse over the other. However, court judgments continued to show gender bias against abused women until 2005. Societal perceptions of marital violence have become more diverse and neutral since the early post-war period. Nonetheless, reports often attribute marital violence to illness or bad habits, downplaying male perpetrators' responsibility. Moralistic condemnation of abused women and calls for them to fulfill wifely duties persist. Abused men are gaining more attention, but questions about why they "can't fight back" remain. Violent women are often portrayed negatively, reinforcing outdated views of male dominance in the family. This study concludes that the legal regulation of spousal violence has evolved from gender-differentiated norms during the Qing Dynasty to gender-neutral descriptions with modern legal systems in the Japanese Colonial Period, continuing through the Republic of China period. However, "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" as an indeterminate legal concept requires judicial practice to define its content. Many judgements, through gendered interpretations, have reinforced hierarchical family order, transforming the husband's disciplinary power over the wife into a justification for marital violence based on the wife's "improper conduct." Nonetheless, some judges have used the interpretive space of "Unbearable Mistreatment in Cohabitation" to challenge gender bias in its application. This article argues that the complexity of the aforementioned judicial practices, intertwined with societal views on domestic violence during different periods, depicts a shifting image of marital order across eras.