The term “empty bed fee” originated in 2010 during a court case in Chongqing. The story goes that a happily married couple faced difficulties when the husband started his own business and had to attend late-night business meetings. As his business thrived, so did his financial status, leading him to engage in extramarital affairs. The wife became upset about his frequent absence from home, and after an argument, they reached an agreement that he would have to pay a penalty if he didn’t sleep at home.
Initially, the wife’s intention was not to impose a fine on her husband. However, this arrangement inadvertently provided the husband with an excuse to buy his freedom, and it continued for a considerable period. Eventually, the husband’s business declined, and he could no longer afford to pay the empty bed fees. Instead, he started writing IOUs for each night he didn’t return home, believing that, according to marriage law, their money was jointly owned. Consequently, whether he paid his wife or not didn’t matter, as his money was considered their shared property.
One night, when the husband returned home late once again, a heated argument ensued between him and his wife. In a fit of anger, she slapped him, not expecting him to retaliate. However, he was intoxicated and struck her back so forcefully that she lost consciousness. Realizing his mistake, the husband immediately rushed her to the hospital. Upon awakening, the wife decided that this incident was the final straw and expressed her desire for a divorce.
The court of first instance held that the empty bed fee fell within the scope of emotional damages, because the husband had cheated on his wife, and subjected her to domestic violence. The husband appealed, and the court of second instance also supported the claim. The court believed that this fee represented compensation provided by one party to the other during the marital relationship when one party fails to fulfill their obligation of companionship. Although it is referred to as an “empty bed fee,” it is essentially a form of compensation. This agreement reflected the true intentions of both parties as the husband did pay his wife many times when he could afford it, thus constituting a valid agreement.