近日，一起發生於中國貴州的婚約財產糾紛案件引發社會關注。26歲男子王銘在結婚不久後與女方分開，雙方因彩禮與相關金錢返還問題對簿公堂，卻在案件開庭後不久發生憾事。王銘於2025年12月28日凌晨離家，隨後跳橋身亡，消息傳出後，令親友與地方社區人士深感震驚與惋惜。

王銘於去年10月1日與一名女子舉辦婚禮，但雙方並未依法辦理結婚登記。婚禮結束後不久，兩人相處並不順利，於10月23日因爭吵而分手。分開後，雙方圍繞彩禮與相關金錢往來的歸屬問題產生嚴重分歧。王銘隨後向法院提起訴訟，要求女方返還彩禮、紅包等款項，其中彩禮金額為人民幣8.8萬元。

案件進入司法程序後，法院以「婚約財產糾紛」立案審理。根據王銘的申請，法院在正式開庭前裁定，對女方阮女士及其父母名下的銀行存款與網路資金進行保全，凍結金額合計12萬餘元。案件已進行兩天庭審，尚未作出判決結果，卻傳出王銘不幸身亡的消息。

王銘結婚後，因生活習慣與性格差異，雙方多次發生爭執，其中包括對女方抽菸等問題的不滿，最終女方被家人接回娘家。王銘隨後選擇透過法律途徑解決彩禮與相關費用的爭議，然而案件尚未塵埃落定，他便發生意外身亡，對此社區方面亦表示深切惋惜。

王銘的妹夫陳先生則透露庭審中的更多細節。他表示，在法庭上，女方所請的證人、亦即當初的媒人，稱自己並未親眼見到彩禮交付的過程；而阮女士則主張，彩禮在婚後已被王銘「抬回」處理。另一方面，女方提出相反主張，表示為置辦嫁妝與舉辦婚宴，實際支出約人民幣13萬元，再加上紅包等費用，認為整體花費更高，反而要求王銘返還19萬餘元。

這起事件不僅牽涉到彩禮返還在法律上的認定問題，也凸顯出婚約破裂後，雙方在金錢、情感與心理壓力交織下可能產生的巨大衝突。案件最終因當事人離世而蒙上陰影，其背後反映的社會與法律議題，仍有待相關部門與社會進一步反思與討論。

Recently, a case involving a premarital property dispute in Guizhou, China, has drawn widespread public attention. A 26-year-old man surnamed Wang Ming separated from his partner shortly after their wedding, and the two became embroiled in a lawsuit over the return of betrothal gifts. Tragically, shortly after the court hearings began, Wang Ming jumped from a bridge and died, leaving his family, friends, and the local community deeply shocked and saddened.

On January 6, Wang Ming held a wedding ceremony with a woman on October 1 last year, but the two did not legally register their marriage. Not long after the ceremony, their relationship deteriorated. On October 23, following an argument, they separated. After the breakup, serious disputes arose over the return of betrothal gifts and other monetary exchanges. Wang Ming subsequently filed a lawsuit demanding that the woman return the betrothal money and red-envelope cash gifts, with the betrothal payment amounting to 88,000 yuan.

The court accepted the case as a “premarital property dispute.” At Wang Ming’s request, the court ruled before the trial to freeze more than 120,000 yuan in bank deposits and online funds held under the names of the woman, Ms. Ruan, and her parents as a property preservation measure. The case had already gone through two days of hearings and had not yet reached a verdict when news broke of Wang Ming’s death.

The couple frequently argued due to differences in lifestyle and personality, including disputes over the woman’s smoking habits. Eventually, the woman was taken back to her parents’ home by her family. Wang Ming then chose to resolve the dispute over the betrothal gifts and related expenses through legal channels. Before the court could issue a judgment, however, he tragically took his own life, a development that the community described as deeply regrettable.

Wang Ming’s brother-in-law, Mr. Chen, provided further details from the court proceedings. He stated that during the trial, a witness for the woman—the matchmaker—testified that she had not personally seen the betrothal gifts being delivered. Ms. Ruan, on the other hand, claimed that the betrothal money had been “carried back” by Wang Ming after the wedding. At the same time, the woman put forward a counterclaim, asserting that she had spent approximately 130,000 yuan on dowry items and wedding banquets, and that when red-envelope gifts were included, the total expenses were even higher. On this basis, she demanded that Wang Ming return more than 190,000 yuan instead.

This case not only involves the legal determination of whether betrothal gifts should be returned, but also highlights the intense conflicts that can arise after a broken engagement, when financial disputes intersect with emotional strain and psychological pressure. The tragic death of one of the parties has cast a heavy shadow over the case, raising broader questions for society and the legal system to reflect upon.