He Came Home at 2:40 P.M. and Found a Man Hiding in His Bedroom

At 2:40 in the afternoon, in Banqiao, New Taipei City, Mr. Chen lifted the air-conditioning tool bag from the footrest of his scooter. His shoulder dipped. A client had changed the appointment. He rode back to the apartment for the multimeter he had left behind. He was not supposed to be home.

The lock turned. The television was off. His wife sat on the edge of the sofa. One button on her shirt was in the wrong hole. She looked up. “Why are you back?” she said.

He did not answer. A small sound came from the bedroom. It sounded like a phone hitting the floor. He walked over. The door was not shut tight. Between the wardrobe and the bed, a man was crouching. He wore socks. In the trash can were tissues, crumpled, the top one still wet.

He called 110. He said, “Someone assaulted my wife.”

Before the police arrived, the man did not speak. His wife did not speak. At the police station, she said, “It was not an assault. I am sorry.”

The police and prosecutors checked phones, messages, entry and exit records. The wife changed her statement. She said the two were having an affair. She had met the other man on a dating app. It started six months earlier. That afternoon, after her husband left, she invited him over. Her husband came back early.

Prosecutors found the evidence insufficient for a sexual assault charge. The other man received a non-prosecution disposition.

With a lawyer, the husband turned to civil court. He asked for NT$1 million in emotional damages. The New Taipei District Court heard the case. The other man was legally notified but did not appear. The judge proceeded with a one-sided debate and awarded NT$200,000.

The judgment read: Marriage aims at shared life between husband and wife. Honesty is a necessary condition. The other man had sexual intercourse with the wife. He intentionally used a method contrary to good morals to unlawfully infringe the husband’s status interest based on the spousal relationship. The circumstances were serious. Considering both parties’ education, economic situation, the degree of harm, and mental suffering, NT$200,000 was appropriate.

The husband graduated from a vocational high school. He works in air-conditioning and refrigeration. His monthly income is about NT$50,000 to NT$70,000. The other man attended university but did not graduate. He had no recorded income in 2024. Every day the husband climbs exterior walls, crawls through ceilings, and washes filters. That afternoon, his tool bag was still on his shoulder.

The wife was not a defendant in the civil judgment. After she spoke at the police station, she rarely spoke again. Her phone contained messages with the other man. One read: “He is usually not home in the afternoon.” Another read: “Come in through the back door.”

The other man did not appear in court. Court notices filled his mailbox at his rented apartment. A neighbor said he moved away.

After adultery was decriminalized, infringement of spousal rights became the main civil remedy. NT$200,000 is neither high nor low in practice. It cannot buy back a quiet afternoon. It is a number written in the judgment.

After the judgment became final, the husband went back to washing air conditioners. He crouched on a client’s rear balcony, removed the filter, and dust fell everywhere. His phone buzzed once. A bank deposit notification. NT$200,000. He glanced at it and put the phone back in his pocket. The filter was not clean yet. The tap was running. He kept rinsing.

A man came home early. He found a stranger in his bedroom. He called the police. He learned the stranger was not a criminal in the eyes of criminal law. He went to civil court. He won a judgment. He received money. He went back to work.

Criminal law asks whether a sexual act happened against someone’s will. Civil law asks whether a spouse’s status interest was infringed. The husband’s first call to the police was an attempt to protect his wife. The wife’s later statement turned the case into an affair. The other man’s absence from court left the husband’s account largely uncontested.

The judgment does not record the sound of a phone hitting the floor, the wet tissue in the trash can, or the tool bag on the husband’s shoulder.

In Taiwan, Article 184 of the Civil Code says a person who intentionally or negligently infringes another’s rights is liable for damages. A person who intentionally uses a method contrary to good morals to cause damage is also liable. Article 195, paragraph 3, allows a claim for a reasonable amount when a person unlawfully infringes another’s status interest based on parent-child, spouse, or other family relationship, and the circumstances are serious. Spousal rights fall under this. The other man’s conduct was found to meet the standard. The court awarded NT$200,000.

The amount is not a formula. Courts look at education, income, the duration and nature of the affair, the damage to the marriage, and the mental pain of the injured spouse. In this case, the husband’s income was modest but stable. The other man had no recorded income. The affair lasted about six months. The encounter happened in the husband’s home. The other man hid in the bedroom. The husband found used tissues. These facts pushed the award above a token sum. They did not push it to NT$1 million.

The early return. The wrong button. The man in socks. The wet tissue. The 110 call. The changed statement. The non-prosecution. The civil complaint. The absent defendant. The NT$200,000. The filter. The running tap.

The husband does not say he was betrayed. The wife does not say she was unhappy. The other man does not say he was afraid. Their actions and the objects around them carry the case.

The afternoon ends with a man crouching on a balcony, a filter in his hands, water running, dust falling, a bank notification on his phone. He looks. He puts the phone away. He keeps rinsing.