Foo Teck Kuan v Chan Yoke Han

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Angelina Hing
• Judgment Date: 03 June 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGDC 235
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: OSF 188 of 2009
• Published date: 25 June 2010
• Year: 2010
• Hearing Date: 20 May 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Cheng Kiong (C K Tan & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Hui Min (Legal Aid Bureau)
• Citation: [2010] SGDC 235

Angelina Hing: Background to this matter

The Plaintiff (husband) applied under Section 94 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 253, 1997 Rev Ed) for leave to file a Writ of Summons for the dissolution of his marriage to the Defendant (wife) notwithstanding that 3 years have not passed since the date of the marriage.

The matter came for hearing before me on 20 May 2010. I reserved judgment to consider the matter. I now set out the reasons for my decision.

The husband’s evidence

The husband and wife were married on 23 July 2008. The husband claimed that he had suffered extreme hardship and that there was extreme depravity on the part of the wife. The husband said that the wife has a diploma from Singapore Polytechnic but refused to look for a job since end 2007. Instead, she ran an internet business from home. They would have quarrels over money.

Sometime in early September 2009, the wife left the matrimonial home without any warning and sent him a text message saying that she wanted to divorce him. She came back to the matrimonial home on 14 September 2009 and on 16 September 2009, the wife filed an application for maintenance in MSS 4910 of 2009.

Since her return to the matrimonial home, she slept in a separate bedroom in the 3 room HDB matrimonial flat. She then started to bring a man home even when the husband was in the flat. She took the man into her room and closed the door. She did this regularly.

The husband became very depressed and could not concentrate on his work. He did not go to work for consecutive 4 days and was summarily dismissed by his employers.

After confiding in his sister, he decided to install a camera inside the wife’s bedroom. From the videos taken, he confirmed that the wife was indeed having sex with the man in the bedroom.

The wife’s evidence

The wife claims she stopped work as a sales assistant prior to their marriage because the husband was rather possessive and told her that he did not like her job scope because it entailed substantial contact with the public. Hence she stopped work since July 2007. Even after she resigned, he would keep asking her where she went during the day. She conducted online sales via e-bay of old items to get extra cash.

The husband used to give her $1000 - $1500 every month but stopped giving her any maintenance since early 2009. Hence her application for maintenance on 16 September 2009.

The wife also gave her version of the facts which led to leaving the matrimonial flat in early September 2009. She explained that she had quarrelled with the husband over her not wanting to have sex with him as she felt tired and ill yet he persisted. Hence she left without prior warning. She denied sending the husband a text message saying she wanted a divorce. According to her, she merely said she wanted a separation. On 14 September 2009, the parties had meeting to resolve their differences. The husband seemed sincere so she decided to move back on 14 September 2009, only to find the door padlocked. She changed her mind about returning. Instead, she enlisted the help of the locksmith and removed her belongings to her mother’s place.

The husband allegedly went to the wife’s mother’s place and created a scene. He told the wife’s mother that the wife was seeing another man and tried to show her the photographs. The wife’s mother told her that she was no longer in good health and could no longer cope with much stress. Upon hearing these words, the wife decided to give the husband a chance and returned to the matrimonial flat, 1-2 days later. She alleged at this stage, that she sincerely wanted to salvage her marriage.

The wife did not dispute that after her return to the matrimonial flat, she slept in a separate bedroom. She also admitted that she did bring a man home a few times and had sex with him in the room. She however disputed that she was trying to provoke the husband. She claimed that on all occasions when she brought the man home, she thought that the Plaintiff would not notice since he would either be out or in his own room.

The Law

Counsel for the Defendant had in her submission, cogently set out the law as follows:

Section 94 of the Woman’s Charter (Cap 353)

Section 94 states that no writ for divorce shall be filed in court unless at the date of the filing of the writ three years have passed since the date of the marriage (“the 3-year period”). However the court may allow a writ to be filed before the 3-year period on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the plaintiff or of exceptional depravity on the part of the defendant.(s94(2))

The court shall have regard to whether there is a reasonable probability of a reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of the 3-year period in deciding whether to allow the application for leave to file a writ before the 3-year period (s94(3)). In this regard, the court may send the parties for counselling before deciding on the application (s94(4)).

The rationale for the 3-year period is to protect the sanctity of the marriage:

“The public policy reason that a restriction may protect the dignity of marriage and shape an attitude of mind is strong. Marriage is devalued if divorce is easily available within days of it.”[Time Restriction on Divorce in Singapore, Debbie SL Ong, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2003] 418-443 at page 423.

With the “escape route” of “exceptional hardship/exceptional depravity”, however there are two competing principles:

“The law must choose which direction to take: to save the marriage by insisting on the parties remaining married and making greater efforts at reconciliation (at the risk of merely deferring the divorce and prolonging the agony) or to “give a decent burial with the minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness” of a marriage which is practically unsalvageable?” [Time Restriction on Divorce in Singapore, supra, at page 422]

Guiding Principles for exceptions to the 3-year period

In deciding whether to grant an application to file a divorce writ before the 3-year period, the following principles apply: The intention of s94 is to promote the sanctity of marriage and to ensure that parties do not rush into and out of marriage capriciously. [Ng Kee Shee v Fu Gaofei [2005] 4 SLR 762 at paragraph 21]. Separation rather than divorce would normally be appropriate during the 3-year perod, to enable persons who have been unwise in their choice of partners to have a period of reflection. [Zhao Lu v Lee Yong Kwong Johnson [2007]SGDC 99 at paragraph 70-71] Some...