Asha Maudgil v Suresh Kumar Gosain

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Teong Qwee JC
• Judgment Date: 16 May 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 144
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 179 of 1994
• Date: 16 May 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Shriniwas Rai (Hin Rai & Tan)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 144
• Defendant Counsel: Dora SL Chua (Assomull & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Registration of marriage in Singapore,Jurisdiction of High Court,Family Law,Whether registration under s 182 of marriage solemnized abroad proper,Recognition,Whether recognised in Singapore,Maintenance,Couple married in India,Marriage,Marriage outside country,Foreign decree,Jurisdiction of wife's domicile,Divorce by Indian court,Divorce,Wife,s 107 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Whether court can order maintenance where marriage is dissolved by decree of a court of another jurisdiction,ss 181 & 182 Women's Charter (Cap 353)

This is an application by the plaintiff for maintenance for herself made under ss 61 and 107 of the Women`s Charter. Section 61(1) provides:

Any married woman whose husband neglects or refuses to provide her reasonable maintenance may apply to a District Court or Magistrate`s Court and that court on due proof thereof may order the husband to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for her maintenance.

By s 2, `married woman` means a woman validly married under any law, religion, custom or usage. Section 107 provides:

The court may order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife -

(a) during the course of any matrimonial proceedings; or

(b) when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage.

In her affidavit, the plaintiff says that she married the defendant in Secunderabad in India on 27 April 1990. The husband is an Indian national who was then residing in Singapore. She came to Singapore with him shortly after. The marriage was registered under s 182 of the Women`s Charter on 1 June 1990. She lived with the defendant in Singapore until March 1991 when she left for India. On 25 July 1991 she filed a petition for divorce in the city civil court at Secunderabad and on 29 April 1993 that court ordered and decreed `that the petition be ... allowed granting the decree of divorce, and that the marriage ... be dissolved`.

The defendant raised a preliminary objection on the ground of want of jurisdiction or alternatively that this court is not forum conveniens and that these proceedings are frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the process of court.

Marriage

The plaintiff living in India and the defendant in Singapore both published their bio-data in the matrimonial columns of such newspapers as Hindustan Times , The Times of India and Tribune circulating in India and obviously such publication achieved some measure of success. In due course, a marriage was arranged and solemnized in India in accordance with Vedic (Hindu) rites. They are both Hindus and the plaintiff says in her petition for divorce that they are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (India) and the marriage was registered in the office of the marriage registrar at Secunderabad. It is not disputed that the marriage was valid and I agree that on the evidence it appears to have been celebrated in accordance with the lex loci celebrationis which is that of India and there is no evidence that it is otherwise void for lack of capacity. See s 99.

Registration

After the marriage the parties applied to the Registrar of Marriages in Singapore and he registered the marriage under s 182. Section 182 provides:

(1) Notwithstanding section 181 the parties to a marriage which has been solemnized under any law, religion, custom or usage may, if the marriage has not been registered, apply to the Registrar in the prescribed form for the registration of the marriage.

It applies notwithstanding s 181. Section 18 provides:

(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the validity of any marriage solemnized under any law, religion, custom or usage prior to the commencement of this Act.

(2) Such marriages, if valid under the law, religion, custom or usage under which they were solemnized shall be deemed to be registered under the provisions of this Act.

`Such marriages` do not include any marriage solemnized in India after the commencement of the Act on 15 September 1961 and `Notwithstanding s 181` makes it abundantly clear that only marriages which under s 181 would be deemed to be registered may be registered under s 182, otherwise those words would be deprived of any meaning at all. The Secunderabad marriage in 1990 is not registrable under s 182. The plaintiff appears to have relied on the fact of registration in support of her case as to validity of the Indian marriage but I heard no submissions on it and in any case it is clear that under s 32 registration under s 182 (whether it is permitted or not) is irrelevant.

Divorce

The plaintiff`s case is that the marriage has been dissolved by the Secunderabad divorce in 1993. That is also the defendant`s case. The plaintiff also claims under s 61 as a married woman and I invited counsel to address me on the validity of the divorce. Ms Chua submitted that the plaintiff was domiciled in India before coming to Singapore in 1990 but had not adopted a domicile in Singapore as there was no intention to give up her domicile in India. Her domicile did not change to that of her husband (if it was different) upon and by reason only of the marriage. See s 46. Before coming to Singapore in 1990 she resided in Secunderabad with her family. There is no evidence that she resided anywhere else. She graduated from the University of Hyderabad (India) and was a lecturer at Punjab University (India). When she left for Singapore after the marriage she was on leave from the university. She retained her teaching appointment and applied for one year`s leave from 12 May 1990 but her application was turned down and she was required to return to the university by 15 January 1991 failing which her `post shall be liable to be declared vacant`. In the event she left Singapore in March 1991 and returned to the university to teach. She recently came to Singapore and in her affidavit she says she is a lecturer at the university and is on leave. She also says that she is a permanent resident of Singapore, ie she has the status of a person who holds a permit to enter or re-enter Singapore issued under the Immigration Act. She does not say where her domicile is or where she regards her permanent home to...