Aeh v Aei

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Judgment Date02 October 2015
Docket NumberDivorce Suit No 1070 of 2012 (Summons No 4196 of 2015)
Date02 October 2015

[2015] SGHC 255

Woo Bih Li J

Divorce Suit No 1070 of 2012 (Summons No 4196 of 2015)

High Court

Family Law — Divorce — Application for leave to extract certificate of final judgment (divorce) out of time — Whether leave should not be granted because wife dissatisfied with previous court order pertaining to children — Section 123(1) Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)


The parties obtained an interim judgment of divorce on 10 August 2012. The High Court gave its decision on ancillary matters on 13 December 2013. The parties each filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal (“CA”) and the appeals came up for hearing on 12 February 2105 and 27 April 2015. On 30 July 2015, the plaintiff-husband applied to extract the “Certificate of Final Judgment (Divorce)” but the application was rejected as it was out of time. The plaintiff- husband then applied for leave of court to be granted to him to file and extract the Certificate of Final Judgment (Divorce) on 28 August 2015. The defendant- wife argued that leave should not be granted because she was not satisfied with certain aspects of the CA’s order pertaining to the children.

Held, granting the application:

[Editorial note: Paragraphs 19 to 21 (referred to in the holding below) are not reported. They can be found in the unreported version of the judgment ([2015] SGHC 255) on LawNet.]

The purpose of s 123(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) was to make sure that the welfare of every child was not overlooked when a judgment was to be made final. The provision was meant to apply where there had been no court ruling in respect of every child of the marriage. The reference in s 123(1) to “arrangements” having been made for the welfare of every child was to arrangements made by the parties and not to orders of court. Section 123(1) was not intended to allow one court to review whether an earlier order in respect of the welfare of the child was satisfactory: at [19] to [22].

[Observation: If necessary, solicitors should ask the court to clarify which was the last hearing for the purpose of r 96(3) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014): at [14].

Rule 96(1) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 refers to the expiration of the period fixed “by the Court” for making the judgment final. This period is fixed by s 99(1) of the Women’s Charter: at [15].]

Case(s) referred to

AQB v AQC [2011] 3 SLR 1042 (refd)

ZK v ZL [2008] SGDC 376 (refd)

Legislation referred to


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT