The divorce case between Ma Rong and Wang Baoqiang has been in dispute, but there is still no result. Today, it was learned from authoritative channels that Beijing No.3 middle court has officially accepted the divorce case between Wang Baoqiang and Ma Rong, as well as the case of Ma Rong suing Wang Baoqiang for reputation infringement. The case has not yet officially opened. At present, Wang Baoqiang formally submits a written application to the court, requiring the two cases to be heard in public.
On the afternoon of February 11, Wang Baoqiang v. Ma Rong's divorce case and Ma Rong v. Wang Baoqiang's right of reputation case were heard in a closed court in Chaoyang Court, Beijing, respectively, and sentenced in court.
Wang Baoqiang's divorce case was decided by the court in the first instance: to terminate the marriage relationship between the two parties, and from the perspective of promoting the healthy growth of their children, the court decided that the children born in marriage should be raised by Wang Baoqiang and the daughters born in marriage should be raised by Ma Rong; in the case of Ma Rong's reputation right, the court determined that Wang Baoqiang did not constitute reputation infringement, and the first instance decision rejected Ma Rong's claim.
Ma Rong filed an appeal after the sentencing, and the three courts have accepted the two cases.
Today, the reporter learned from Wang Baoqiang's agent that Wang Baoqiang applied in writing to the court to hear the divorce case and the right of reputation case in public.
Wang Baoqiang's main reason for applying for the publicity of the second instance is that, during the trial process and after the civil judgment of the first instance of the two cases was made, Ma Rong repeatedly published information related to the case in the media and other public places, and the evidence of the two cases was basically the same, which has been basically known to the public through media reports, so there is no situation that Ma Rong did not hold the trial in public because of personal privacy.
The court has not yet replied to this application.