Doshi v Doshi

• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 02 September 1965
• Docket Number: Divorce No 36 of 1965
• Date: 02 September 1965

Doshi

Plaintiff

and

Doshi

Defendant

[1965] SGHC 13

A V Winslow J

Divorce No 36 of 1965

High Court

Courts and Jurisdiction–High Court–Divorce proceedings–Marriage solemnised outside Singapore in 1957–Whether court having jurisdiction to dissolve marriage–Sections 82 (1), 166 Women's Charter 1961 (No 18 of 1961)–Sections 4, 8 (1) Revised Edition of the Laws (Annual Supplements) Ordinance 1956 (No 10 of 1956)–Family Law–Divorce–Jurisdiction–Marriage solemnised outside Singapore in 1957–Whether High Court having jurisdiction to dissolve marriage–Sections 82 (1), 166 Women's Charter 1961 (No 18 of 1961)–Sections 4, 8 (1) Revised Edition of the Laws (Annual Supplements) Ordinance 1956 (No 10 of 1956)–Statutory Interpretation–Statutes–Law revision–Unauthorised amendment–Conclusiveness of Annual Supplement–Sections 4, 8 (1) Revised Edition of the Laws (Annual Supplements) Ordinance 1956 (No 10 of 1956)

The petitioner, a Singapore citizen domiciled in Singapore, sought the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of her desertion. The divorce was uncontested and the only issue was whether his marriage to the respondent, which took place in Ipoh according to Hindu customary rites in May 1957, was a marriage which the court had jurisdiction to dissolve as the Annual Supplement to the Laws of Singapore for 1961 issued in 1964 limited the application of s 166 of the Women's Charter 1961 (No 18 of 1961) to marriages solemnised “in Singapore” before the coming into operation of the Charter on 15 September 1961. The State Advocate-General conceded that the 1964 addition of the words “in Singapore” was not authorised by s 4 of the Revised Edition of the Laws (Annual Supplements) Ordinance 1956 (No 10 of 1956), but relied on s 8 (1) of the Revised Edition of the Laws (Annual Supplements) Ordinance 1956 to justify the conclusiveness of the 1961 Annual Supplement.

Held, allowing the petition:

(1) Section 8 (1) of the Revised Edition of the Laws (Annual Supplements) Ordinance 1956 provided for the “sanctity” of an Annual Supplement only in respect of Ordinances enacted in the year immediately preceding the date of its issue. The 1961 Annual Supplement was issued only in 1964 and reliance could not therefore be placed on s 8: at [10].

(2) Recourse could therefore be had only to the Ordinance as originally enacted which did not, in s 166, contain the words “in Singapore”: at [11].

Reference by the Registrar of Titles, Selangor...