JBA v JBB

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sowaran Singh
• Judgment Date: 10 October 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 412
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No. 4818 of 2012
• Published date: 03 December 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 22 September 2014,25 September 2014,11 August 2014,24 September 2014,26 September 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. Segeram (M/s Segeram & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: The Defendant (In Person).
• Subject Matter: Catch words: Family law,Contested divorce,Defence filed,Whether divorce should be granted
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 412

District Judge Sowaran Singh:

The Plaintiff (wife) filed for a divorce¹ based on the unreasonable behaviour of the husband. The Defendant (husband) did not want the divorce². The wife had filed for the divorce on the 5 October 2012. The contested divorce was heard over several days. At the conclusion, the court granted Interim Judgment (IJ) to be made final after 3 months with each party to bear their own costs. The ancillaries were all adjourned to Chambers.

The Appeal

On the 8 October 2014 the husband filed an appeal against the court’s decision in granting the wife the divorce.

The Law

Section 95(1) of the Women’s Charter (Chapter 353) provides that either party to a marriage may file a writ for divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. However, the court hearing such proceeding for a divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the plaintiff satisfies it of one or more of the facts enumerated in sub-section (3) and in this case sub-section 3(b) is relevant namely that the husband has behaved in such a way that the wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.

Justice Lai Siu Chu in Castello Ana Paula Costa Fusillier v Lobo Carlos Manuel Rosado [2003] 4 SLR 331 stated succinctly (after alluding to Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt³) the several tests including the following at [21]: “i) the question whether the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent must be answered subjectively: whether his/her attitude is reasonable is irrelevant; ii) in dealing with behaviour, the question is whether the petitioner can reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. It is for the court to answer this, using an objective test, having regard to the personalities of the individuals before it, however far these may be removed from some theoretical norm, in the light of the whole history of the marriage and their relationship.”

The Brief Facts

The wife was described⁴ as being a 48-year-old xxx whilst the husband as being 49 years old. They married in November 1994 and have 2 sons. The elder boy who was adopted is 17 years old and the younger son is 11+ years of age⁵. On the 1 September 2012 the wife moved out of the matrimonial home at xxx (the flat) with the 2 children and was currently living with her mother at the latter’s home in xxx.

The Wife’s Case in Brief

The wife’s case was that after the younger child was born the husband stopped caring for the older child’s welfare and showed more concern for the younger son. He was over possessive towards the younger boy and paid no attention to the older son. He made up his mind that the older boy was a failure and pinned all his hopes on the younger boy. The husband’s conduct was hurtful to her. He was temperamental and violent and caused her and the children to be in fear by his actions. He placed a lot of stress on the younger child and would lock himself and the boy in a room to coach him in his studies. The younger boy revealed to her that the father had slapped him and disallowed him to sleep early even though he had school the next day.

On the morning of the 1 September 2012 she proceeded to apply for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) for the younger son⁶. On that day after she and the 2 children returned home in the night at about 8pm, the husband refused to let her and the older son enter the flat. He tried to grab the younger son into the flat and when the boy started crying she told both children to move away from the husband. However, the husband pushed her away from the younger son causing her to fall to the ground and he even pulled her hair. On seeing this, the older son intervened and also called for the police. Fearing for their safety, she decided to move out of the flat with the children and went to live with her mother. When they were leaving the husband made it difficult for them by going through their belongings to check that they had not “stolen” any items.

Initially the wife had wanted to call their older son as a witness and his affidavit was marked as P2. However, during the hearing on the 24 September 2014 she informed the court that she had decided not to do so and withdrew his affidavit.

The Husband’s Case in Brief.

The husband denied the wife’s claims. He said that he was trying to change the older son’s attitude and behaviour for him to grow up to be a better person. He had always shown love and concern fairly between the 2 boys. The older son became rebellious and disobedient when he became a teenager and as a father he had to take a stand to discipline him. He explained away all the wife’s complaints about his unequal treatment of the 2 boys. In his affidavit he detailed and exhibited many photographs to show how he had taken care of the 2 boys and the family.

As for the events of the 1 September 2012⁷ he said that when he got up at about 10am he did not see the younger son so he waited for him. When it was past noon he got anxious as the boy had still not returned home and he had no news. The wife did not inform him but he knew that the son would be with her. He felt that the wife should have called him and told him that the younger son was with her. At 5.30pm the younger son had to prepare for his swimming lessons and he would bring the boy for his usual swimming class. At about 8.30pm the wife came back with the 2 boys. This upset him. He asked the wife why she had not informed him of their whereabouts. Both of them “then had an argument”. The wife then packed her clothes and the children’s clothes and left for her mother’s place in Pasir Ris taking the children without his consent and agreement. Since then the wife had been using the children to get back at him by not giving access and also filed an application for interim custody, care and control. He asserted that he had love and concern for both children and their different approaches to bringing up the older son could always be settled between them. He asked that the wife’s claim for the divorce be dismissed.

He said that in fact on the 1 September 2012 it was the older son who had assaulted him and he had sustained injuries. His police report dated the 9 September 2012 read:

“On the 01/09/2012 at about 2115 hrs, my son and I had a disagreement at the said location but I do not remember what it was about. He got very angry with me and we had a scuffle. He then used both hands and flung me against the balcony and I fell onto the floor. I suffered some abrasions and bruises on my knee. After that I was in pain and called for the ambulance. I was conveyed to Tan Tock Seng hospital and given 4 days of MC from 01/09/2012 to 04/09/2012.”

He exhibited his 2 police reports about the assault on him by the older son on the 1 September 2012 and earlier on the 13 May 2012. As a consequence, the police had given the older boy a warning in lieu of a prosecution on the 28 March 2014⁸.

In his oral testimony the husband admitted that there was a scuffle between him and the wife when she and the children returned on the 1 September 2012. There was a little pushing but no assault or pulling of her hair by him. He was pretty upset with her and things happened in the heat of the moment. He too was stressed after the incident but he did not seek medical attention.

The husband wanted to call 4 other witnesses (3 teachers and a senior police officer) regarding the negative behaviour of the older son. In his affidavit (marked as D2) he stated the names of these 4 witnesses and the evidence they were to give. The court disallowed the husband from calling these witnesses after informing the parties that having regard to all the evidence that was already before it, the court was of the view that this evidence was not helpful to the issue whether the husband had treated the older son unfairly.

Decision

The court was...