自《民法典》颁布以来，离婚中无过错方保护不再仅是单一的法条规定，而是形成了较为完善的体系，一方面可以依据照顾无过错方制度从离婚财产分割中获得较多的财产；另一方面，可以依据离婚损害赔偿主张重大过错方承担填补无过错方精神损害或者物质损害的责任。照顾无过错方制度与离婚损害赔偿制度都是无过错方的救济手段，但是两者之间的关系以及适用关系法律并没有明确说明，众多学者对此各执一词，司法实践中各级法院也各不相谋，未能形成共识。分歧的存在导致了司法实践中同案不同判的情况，削弱了当事人的预见可能性，长期发展下去不仅有损当事人的权益，也影响了司法公信力。明晰照顾无过错方制度和离婚损害赔偿制度的构成要件，尤其是，两制度中“过错”和“无过错方”的外延有明显区别。照顾无过错方制度对于过错的程度没有限制，而离婚损害赔偿制度则要求存在重大过错，即将一般过错排除在请求原因之外；对于“无过错方”的限定，照顾无过错方的请求权人为绝对无过错方，而离婚损害赔偿只要求不存在重大过错即可，或言之，即使存在一般过错，也不会丧失离婚损害赔偿请求权。鉴于此，确定了两者之间能够在“重大过错”的情况下同时使用的可行性。进一步，通过案例检索分析，对司法实践中的现状和存在的问题进行检视，为提出离婚中无过错方救济的请求权解释论的提出提供实践经验。本文提出以“量化”为主要思路的解决办法，分别对过错程度、损害程度、弥补程度三要素进行量化，并在三要素之间搭建同通路，以使各要素在“量化”数值上达成一致。起点是对于过错程度的量化，将重大过错的程度视为A，所造成的损害为a；一般过错的程度视为B，B造成的损害为b。a在程度上一定大于b，可以认为a=b+c。救济时，可以逐步分层处理，先对一般过错造成的损害b进行弥补，如果双方都具有过错B，则相互“抵消”；再对重大过错中超出的部分c进行弥补。既能够同时考虑双方的过错程度，又能够根据过错程度的不同实现不同程度的弥补，实现存在过错程度不同、造成损害不同、承担责任不同的结果，最终实现实质公平。

Since the promulgation of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China," the protection of the no-fault party in divorce has no longer been limited to a single legal provision but has formed a relatively complete system. On the one hand, the no-fault party can obtain more property from the division of divorce property through the caring for the no-fault party system; on the other hand, it is possible to claim that the party with significant fault bears the responsibility for compensating for the spiritual or material damage of the no-fault party based on divorce damage compensation. Both the caring for the no-fault party system and the divorce damage compensation system are remedies for the no-fault party, but the relationship between the two and their applicable relationship is not clearly stated by the law. Many scholars have their own opinions on this, and in judicial practice, courts at various levels do not coordinate with each other, failing to reach a consensus. The existence of differences has led to different judgments in similar cases in judicial practice, weakening the predictability of the parties involved. If this continues to develop in the long term, it will not only harm the rights of the parties but also affect the credibility of the judiciary.This article clarifies the constituent elements of the caring for the no-fault party system and the divorce damage compensation system, especially the obvious distinction in the extension of "fault" and "no-fault party" between the two systems. The caring for the no-fault party system has no limitation on the degree of fault, while the divorce damage compensation system requires the presence of significant fault, excluding general fault from the cause of the claim; for the limitation of "no-fault party," the claimant for caring for the no-fault party must be absolutely faultless, while the divorce damage compensation only requires the absence of significant fault, or in other words, even if there is general fault, the right to claim divorce damage compensation is not lost. In view of this, the feasibility of using both in the case of "significant fault" has been determined. Furthermore, through case retrieval analysis, the current situation and existing problems in judicial practice are examined, providing practical experience for the proposal of the interpretative theory of the right to relief for the no-fault party in divorce.This article proposes a solution with "quantification" as the main approach, quantifying the three elements of fault degree, damage degree, and compensation degree, and establishing a common pathway among the three elements to reach an agreement on the "quantified" values. The starting point is the quantification of the degree of fault, considering significant fault as A, with the resulting damage as a; general fault is considered as B, with the damage caused by B as b. a is necessarily greater in degree than b and can be considered as a = b + c. As for the remedy, it can be handled layer by layer, first compensating for the damage b caused by general fault, and if both parties have fault B, they can "offset" each other; then compensating for the excess part c of the significant fault, which can consider the fault degree of both parties and achieve different degrees of compensation according to the different fault degrees, realizing different degrees of responsibility for different fault degrees and different damages caused, ultimately achieving substantive fairness.