In its April 10 decision (No. 452), the council ruled that the article in the Civil Code stating that "husbands have the power to decide the place of residence" was unconstitutional and should be voided no later than a year from that date.

Article 1002 of the ROC Civil Code states, "The wife shall take the husband's residence as her own, and a husband taking the surname of his wife's family shall adopt his wife's residence. But if an agreement is made for the husband to adopt the wife's residence or for a wife to live at a husband's residence even though he is taking her surname, then they can reside as according to their agreement." Ruling 452 made this interpretation: While the proviso written into the law gave both the husband and wife an opportunity to determine their place of residence, in the event that a husband refused to follow an agreement or no agreement was reached, the wife had no power to choose her residence. Stating that it was not possible to consider the specific circumstances in which spouses choose to establish residences, the council ruled that the article violated the constitutional principles of equal rights and proportionality.

The decision came in response to a suit filed by a woman surnamed Chen living in Linkou, whose husband had many years before abandoned her and her two sons, moved away, and then filed for divorce on the grounds that she didn't meet her legal obligation of living in her husband's residence. She appealed, but district and high court judges ruled against her based on Article 1002 of the Civil Code. Not conceding defeat, she filed a final appeal for a constitutional ruling.

According to statistics in the yearbook of the Judicial Yuan, intentional abandonment is the most common grounds for divorce, accounting for more than half of all cases, many of which hinge upon the wife not living at her husband's official residence.

Based on reports gathered by its information hotline, the Awakening Foundation sums up the shortcomings of obliging wives to live in their husband's residence thus: A husband who wants a divorce because he is having an affair might leave to establish a new residence; another might beat his wife until she can't take it any longer and leaves. In either case the husband could then ask the courts to grant him a divorce on the grounds that his wife, by not meeting her "obligation to live with him," had "intentionally abandoned him." Since the wife would then be viewed as the guilty party, she would not be entitled to alimony and could even be sued for damages. The law thus not only failed to bring about justice but was in fact aiding the transgressor.

In many cases in the past, after battered women left home to escape their husband's abuse, the husband would file a complaint with the police that the wife was not meeting her legal obligation of living with him. She would then be forced to move back in, and the abuse would start all over again. It is hoped that the Grand Council's ruling affirming "women's right to freedom of residence" will provide women with greater protection against abusive husbands.

Attorney Yu Mei-nu, a director of the Awakening Foundation, argues that the traditional Chinese concept of marriage is unfair-no matter whether the woman joins her husband's family or the husband takes the wife's surname and joins her family (usually so as to carry on the family line when there are no sons). She believes marriage should be an equal partnership. If one spouse is put in a position above the other, there will be little chance for communication and negotiation. In rejecting the traditional conception of marriage, the Grand Council's ruling was in sync with the times. It also reflected the needs of households in modern society. For instance, many familes, for reason of their children's education, have several residences and may not be actually residing in their registered official residence. "Semigrant" (partially emigrated) families may go for three months without being under the same roof. One's official "household residence" no longer has much significance, which is why the Council of Justices stressed that although "household residence" has legal meaning in certain situations, living together at the household residence is not the only way for spouses to fulfill their legal obligation to live together, and couples that have yet to establish a "household residence" should put their focus on sharing life together in order to fulfill their legal obligation.

Most commentators hold that this ruling has several constitutional ramifications. Among these, the most important is in once again in affirming that the sexes should enjoy equal rights. In 1994, the Grand Council of Justices ruled that Article 1089 of the Civil Code giving fathers priority in custody cases was unconstitutional. And then again in 1996 it ruled that there were unconstitutional elements to the Civil Code provision which denied some wives (depending on when they were married) equal rights to a couple's shared wealth. Thus the April ruling represented the third victory in a row for the cause of equal rights between the sexes. In the future, when legislators set and judges apply civil law, they will have to consider the rights and obligations of both sexes.

Apart from affirming the principle of sexual equality, this ruling also stressed that the constitution protects the freedom to choose one's own residence. "Family relationships, freedom to choose one's residence, and equality of the sexes, all of which are protected by the constitution, are interrelated, and among the inalienable rights of an individual," wrote the China Times in an editorial. "It is essential that both husband and wife respect each other's dignity."

In an op-ed piece, a judge, aside from applauding the Grand Council's ruling, also raised practical considerations, arguing that this constitutional ruling brought de jure equality but did not resolve the practical matter of judges needing clear standards upon which to base decisions. If the courts must determine the meaning of "household residence" on a case-to-case basis, then the ruling "might just make matters worse." A common expression within legal circles is "the law doesn't go into the home," with the idea being that families and marriages are formed from love and respect and thus beyond stipulation by law, so the law shouldn't be allowed to extend its tentacles too deep into the home.

Yu Mei-nu believes that the idea that "the law doesn't enter the home" was well suited to feudal society, but that the structures of modern society are vastly different and that any matters that encroach upon an individual's rights fall within the scope of the law. For instance, the Children's Welfare Law and Battered Homes Prevention Law both are aimed at protecting the rights of the individual. As for the traditional Chinese notion about the respective realms for "feeling, reason and law," if "feeling" were able to resolve these problems, then naturally there would be no need to involve the law. Indeed it wasn't as if the law wasn't involved before, it's just that it used to be greatly biased in favor of one side, whereas now things are more equal.

The Grand Council's decision has met with general approval. Many, however, have raised the following objection: why has the council allowed the law, which it has deemed unconstitutional, to remain in effect for a year? Is there any pressing reason why this unconstitutional law shouldn't be immediately voided? Wouldn't so doing even more clearly aid in the protection of human rights under the constitution?