A "flash marriage" costing over 170,000 yuan (approximately $23,400), built on almost no emotional foundation, saw a couple get married just two days after meeting, only to end up in court four months later. When marriage becomes a disposable commodity, how should the financial expenses be settled? A local court recently handled such a case.
On August 2, 2025, Mr. Wang met Ms. Chen through a matchmaking agency. Influenced by the agency's promotion of "quick marriages" that "avoid complications," the two rapidly agreed to register their marriage just two days later. While the speed from introduction to marriage was lightning-fast, it came with significant financial outlays by Mr. Wang: over 60,000 yuan on "three gold" jewelry, more than 10,000 yuan on an Apple iPhone, and various money transfers, totaling over 170,000 yuan.
Initially, Mr. Wang anticipated a storybook romance following marriage. However, the couple spent little time together after marrying, with their actual cohabitation period being minimal. Conflicts quickly emerged, leading to a complete separation by November of the same year. The hasty marriage lasted just over four months before breaking down.
Calculating the expenses, Mr. Wang deemed the marriage rashly entered into without genuine affection and filed a lawsuit requesting divorce and full restitution of all gifts and money. The court examined the circumstances of the short-lived union, finding that the pair lacked understanding before marriage and failed to build a relationship afterward. The matchmaking agency's encouragement of a "flash marriage," combined with the couple's attempt to sustain the relationship through a prenuptial agreement and expensive gifts, was deemed contrary to the essence of marriage and violated social morals. The court therefore granted the divorce.
The central question remained: how should the substantial expenses incurred over just four months be treated? The court determined that Mr. Wang's considerable financial gifts were conditional, predicated on the expectation of long-term cohabitation and a stable marital relationship. Given that the relationship lasted only slightly over four months without forming a substantive family unit, allowing the woman to retain all the high-value assets would be manifestly unfair to the man and could encourage the不良 practice of using marriage for financial gain.
Considering the brief duration of the marriage, the excessive amount of money involved, and the absence of a stable shared life, the court ruled based on principles of fairness and public order, ordering Ms. Chen to refund 90% of the total gifts received—amounting to approximately 157,000 yuan.