For a failed wedding – a fierce fight between a famous businessman and his beloved over a ring with a diamond.

It was a real struggle for wealth, in which even the judges participated: the former lovers were convinced that only a court could solve the dispute between them correctly. And resolved, but before that he heard even the most secret life stories of ex-boyfriends.

The love was there, but it left, so both the businessman and his ex-girlfriend in court hesitantly revealed how they were having fun together, were angry, repeatedly asked the police for help, and then asked again until they finally realized that it would be like this. just turn around and cancel an already planned wedding.

The first to go to court was a businessman who lived in Kaunas, but who carried out his activities throughout Lithuania and was well known to the public, whose personal data, such as his ex-girlfriends, Delphi I can’t post. In the lawsuit, the man indicated that after the friendship with his girlfriend, he decided to fight with him in Palanga. On that occasion, he gave his beloved a ring with a diamond that cost more than 6 thousand euros. To this gift, the man also attached a GIA certificate confirming the authenticity of the ring and the purchase documents.

But perhaps even then there were disagreements between the couple, as the man offered to sign a deal with his girlfriend. This was agreed, so the document discussed in advance the conditions that a girl will be required to return an expensive jewel if she is unfaithful to another man if the couple decides to divorce due to disagreements, but provided that they have visited the least to a psychologist. seven times in a row beforehand. In addition, the contract also provided that the couple’s wedding would take place only when financial disputes with the beloved mother and aunt, for whom he had loaned 35 thousand. EUR.

The written agreement also specified other conditions under which the diamond ring could remain with the girl: if a wedding was taking place, if the man was violent against his girlfriend, or if the man was unfaithful to another woman or even a man. . And, of course, when the 35 thousand financial problems. Euro refund.

The businessman, who brought a former friend to trial, requested an order to return the ring donated for the engagement or to order more than 6,000. Eur, who had paid for the jewels.

In the lawsuit, the man stated that shortly after the agreement was signed, while he was on vacation in Palanga, his friend caused a conflict, in which the police were also forced to intervene.

According to the businessman, a friend who has had a child by another man accused him that night of being disturbed by a light and a loud sound from the television.

“Not wanting to hear the accusations, I started carrying things and a friend started filming me, so I grabbed the phone because I didn’t want her to film me,” the man explained. – The phone fell to the ground, but I did not do violence against my friend, as she claimed. Yes, I could touch her hand crushing the phone, as well as push her when I leave, but not to do violence. “

When the passions faded, the man returned to the same apartment the next day and found here that his girlfriend had called the police at the time and also wrote a statement about the violence.

“He said he wrote the statement just because I had left home,” according to Kaunas, the criminal case had been wandering in court for a long time, but eventually the appeals court confirmed his claim and withdrew the prosecutors’ allegations of physical damage. . violence because no crime has been committed.

However, this was not the only criminal case brought against the businessman: at the time the girl called the police officers in Palanga, another case of violence was pending in the Vilnius court (this case was brought before the agreement will be signed). The court later found that the businessman deliberately pulled his girlfriend by the hands, hit him on the cheek once, then threw him on the bed and pressed his hands to his knees and held her hair with one hand and hit her on the head with the other. Later, as indicated in the court documents, the man pulled the girl by the hair, broke the earring from her ear and squeezed her mouth and neck so that she would not ask for help.

During the trial of the case, the Kaunas resident admitted his guilt and justified that he was at a concert with his friend that night, they were very jealous, so when they returned home they calmed down. The man admitted that he may have hurt his girlfriend, saying he was inclined to reconcile with her because she was “a person close to me.”

“There was a negative atmosphere between us during the concert, and when we got home, there was a conflict over disrespect for each other, so we stayed; he threw me on the bed, took my hands and then I started to scream, but he closed my mouth, pulled my hair, hit me on the head, said the girl. “So hard that it even darkened my eyes.”

The girl, recognized as a victim, later assured in court that she was trying to forget the grievances and made friends again, and her friend was already touching her for the second time, giving her a ring again.

“A friend apologized to me, I forgave him, so I would like him to be acquitted,” said the girl who had fled the house after the violence; When he got to a nearby kebab, he asked for help, so the staff called the police officers.

After constant fighting, the couple later decided to end the relationship, but the man refused to let the ex-girlfriend keep an expensive diamond ring. And she did not agree to return it, that this jewelry belongs to her, because her former lover used violence against her.

Asking the court to return the ring, the man stressed that during the years of communication with his friend, he did not run a joint farm, he met and slept only two or three days a month.

“Our relationship has been broken and cannot be resumed,” he said. “Based on the agreement we signed, my former friend did not become the owner of the ring because she did not meet the conditions stipulated in the agreement: the wedding did not take place, I did not abuse her while living with her, I was loyal.” .

The ex-boyfriend of the husband at the time said that it was she who initiated the signing of the ring deal because she feared that she could be accused of his theft.

“This agreement was made because my friend wanted to have a joint farm, she wanted families and children,” said the girl, while she came to Kaunas, lived in her friend’s apartment, fixed it, washed it, cooked, too. how together they spent time and slept.

When the businessman filed a lawsuit to return the ring, the girl crossed it at the same time, not only stating that she did not agree to return the jewelry, but also asking the court to recover her belongings: a dresser and a wardrobe, a crib . , a bicycle, skates and tennis rackets. The total value of these items is more than 2.3 thousand. Eur, so the girl asked to pay this amount to a former friend.

The girl said she lived with a friend for about a year in a country house she owned, but moved out due to the violence she had experienced.

“My belongings and those of my son remained that way, but an old friend did not return them to me,” he explained.

But her position was not in accordance with her position: that at the time she was detained by the Vilnius police due to the violence, her ex-girlfriend and her mother went to her apartment and took her belongings, and if they were staying in home, they were just little things.

Refusing to return the ring to the diamond, the girl noted that the former lover had been violent with her, and such a condition was provided for in the signed agreement, so she is not obliged to return the jewelry. According to her, although the court acquitted the former friend, the conviction does not deny the fact that physical force was used against her.

“Because the condition of violence against me in the signed agreement is broader and not only covers criminal offenses, I am not obliged to return the engagement ring,” she said.

After examining the statements made by the former loved ones, the judges ruled that the man has the right to recover an expensive ring with a diamond and his ex-girlfriend, items worth almost 1.8 thousand. EUR. And if those items were no longer there, the court ordered the husband to pay that amount to the ex-girlfriend.

The court noted that a marriage agreement is not binding and cannot be enforced by force, but can have legal consequences: “If no marriage is contracted, both parties to a public marriage agreement have the right to demand repayment from each other. El each other as a gift for a future marriage, unless the value of the gift does not exceed 300 euros and the party receiving the gift dies before the marriage is registered and the marriage is not contracted as a result of the death of the part “.

According to the court, the businessman gave his girlfriend an engagement ring, they were both engaged, the girl introduced her friend to relatives: “There was a public agreement to get married and the parties were going to get married and start a family. The main reason why the plaintiff set the tone of discord was the parties’ agreement to marry (engagement), therefore, when the parties rescinded the engagement, the plaintiff had grounds to request the court to return the gift ” .

The court rejected the girl’s claims that she was not required to return the ring to her ex-boyfriend, as he was acquitted of violence, so there is no evidence that the man abused the girl. According to the judges, given that the concepts of violence were not defined more broadly in the agreement, this concept must be assessed in the manner provided for in criminal law.

In addition, the court emphasized that no evidence had been provided that the man had physically or psychologically abused the girl, nor had another condition been met in the agreement: the businessman had not been reimbursed for the money he had loaned to the mother. of the ex-girlfriend. and aunt.

“There are no legal or contractual conditions under which the property (ring) of the dispute must remain with the accused,” the court ruled against the former businessman’s beloved.

At the time, partially supporting the girl’s counterclaim for claiming the items that were left at the businessman’s home, the court noted that there was ample evidence that they were still stored in the man’s home, according to a review of the SMS correspondence. of the telephone.

It is true that the businessman denied having written such messages to his ex-girlfriend and pointed out that “the technical means can, without the knowledge of the other party, create a situation in which two mobile phones can create correspondence between two mobile subscribers on behalf of strangers “.

Although the court did not rule out such a possibility, it noted that the man did not substantiate this presumption with admissible evidence: “He did not provide data from his mobile operator that the plaintiff did not send or write the telephone messages specified by him.” “.

According to the court, a person who, without a legal basis, has intentionally or negligently acquired what he could not and should not have received, must return it all to the person in whose charge it was acquired.