In reality, many men and women, according to local customs, hold wedding ceremonies and live together, but have never registered their marriage. When their relationship breaks down and they separate, the return of the betrothal gift often leads to disputes. The public generally holds two extreme misconceptions: some believe that holding a wedding banquet constitutes a de facto marriage, and the betrothal gift does not need to be returned; while others think that as long as a marriage certificate has not been obtained, the betrothal gift must be fully returned. Lawyer Tang Yunhong explains that the court will not make a one-size-fits-all judgment and will weigh the proportion of return based on multiple objective facts in combination with the current judicial interpretations and rules of family and domestic cases.

The law recognizes only the marriage registration established by the civil affairs department as the basis for a marital relationship; a simple folk wedding does not confer legal marriage validity. According to the "Explanations of the Civil Code on Marriage and Family Law (Part One)" and the special provisions on bride price disputes, bride price paid with the purpose of entering into marriage, if the couple has not registered their marriage, the payer has the right to sue for the return of the bride price. However, in cases of long-term cohabitation, giving birth to children, and reasonable expenses of the bride price, the return amount will be directly deducted. Either a full refund or no refund at all does not comply with the principle of fair judgment.

The duration of cohabitation is the core standard for discretion. If the couple only held a wedding and never cohabitated, the bride price should be returned in full; for a short-term cohabitation of a few months, the court generally supports the return of 70% to 90%; if cohabitation is for one year or more and a stable joint life is formed, the return ratio is reduced to 30% to 50%; if cohabitation is for two years or more and there is a deep integration into each other's families, only a small amount will be returned at the discretion, and in some cases, the claim for return may even be rejected.

Whether or not to have children is an important consideration of reason and morality. If the female party becomes pregnant, has a miscarriage, or gives birth to children during the cohabitation period, the female party shall bear the costs of childbirth and child-rearing, and the court will significantly reduce the return ratio. For those who have cohabited for many years and have children, in order to protect the rights and interests of women and minors, the majority of precedents no longer support the return of betrothal gifts.

Betrothal expenses and the fault of separation equally affect the judgment result. Betrothal money used for wedding banquet purchases, joint household appliances, and daily household expenses can be directly deducted from the return amount with consumption vouchers; in cases of separation due to major faults such as infidelity, domestic violence, or malicious withdrawal of the marriage proposal, the party at fault needs to bear more property losses, and the corresponding return ratio will be adjusted accordingly.

In practice, it is also necessary to distinguish between bride price and ordinary gifts. Red envelopes for romantic holidays, small gifts, and expenses for daily gatherings are considered gratuitous emotional gifts and do not require return upon breakup; only large cash for engagement, three gold items, and high-value wedding gifts belong to the category of legally returnable bride price.

In summary, the return of betrothal gifts for weddings without a marriage certificate follows a tiered discretionary standard. The return ratio is higher when there is no cohabitation, no children, and no consumption of the betrothal gifts; the longer the cohabitation, the more children born, and the betrothal gifts used for joint life, the corresponding return ratio is reduced. Clarifying the legal judicial criteria, retaining evidence of transfers, consumption, and cohabitation, can both reasonably protect the property rights of the male party and fully guarantee the personal and property contributions of the female party, and properly resolve the contradictions of betrothal property.