Leong Kwek Keong v Lee Ying Kuan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 8
• Date: 21 February 1990
• Subject Matter: 'Living apart',s 88(3)(e) & (7) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Divorce,Words and Phrases,Family Law,Whether intention to terminate marriage,Living apart,Whether marital relationship had broken down,s 88(3)(e) Women's Charter (Cap 353)
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 1690 of 1986
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Chern Yew Tee (Lawrence Chua & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yu Chuan Lun (Yu Chuan Lun)

Cur Adv Vult

This is a contested petition for divorce presented on 3 November 1986 by the petitioner/ husband on the ground of four years` separation under s 88(3)(d) of the Women`s Charter (Cap 353) (the Charter).

The parties were married on 18 March 1975. They have three children, two girls and a boy aged respectively ten, eight and six when the petition was filed in November 1986. At that time, the respondent was living with the children in the matrimonial home in Bedok Reservoir Road, whilst the petitioner was `living` with his parents at Selegie House.

Like many other marriages, the couple had their disagreements on many matters resulting in quarrels. A few instances were related to the court. For example, the respondent complained that the petitioner lacked any sense of discipline and responsibility as he would watch video films from the moment he got up in the morning until he went to work, and that he would allow the children to do what they liked. For example, when she wanted the daughters to continue their piano lessons, he objected on the ground that they had no talent and were not happy about being compelled to learn the piano. The petitioner has alleged that the quarrels started very early on in the marriage, whereas the respondent has alleged that things were normal until April 1978.

Things came to a head in or about July 1982. One evening, the petitioner told the respondent to dress the two daughters so that he could take them out for dinner. She instructed the maid to do it. He got very annoyed when the maid failed to dress the daughters properly. He chided her and told her he wanted to talk things over but she refused as she wanted to watch television. Nevertheless they went out for dinner but he finally decided that, as he said, `Enough is enough`. Next morning, he took most of his belongings and drove to the respondent`s aunt`s house to stay for a few days. He went there and not to his parents` house because he had always confided in the respondent`s aunt in respect of his domestic problems. After that, he moved in to `live` with his parents.

I have put the word `living` in quotation marks in respect of the petitioner`s long stay out of the matrimonial home as the question before me is whether he had been living apart from the respondent since he left on that day in July 1982. The evidence relating to the lifestyle of the petitioner after he left the house is as follows. Commencing from that day and for about a year on, the petitioner would return every week day after work to the matrimonial home, had dinner with the family and then he would spend his time supervising his daughters` school lessons. On Saturdays and Sundays, he would also spend most of his waking hours with the family. On Saturdays, he would fetch the respondent home from her work, take her out for lunch and then they would return to their home. On Sundays, he would come to the flat early in the morning and fetch the respondent and the children to attend mass, after which he would take them out for lunch and then back home. Sometimes, they would go out for entertainment and recreation in the same way they had been doing before he left the flat. He would leave the flat at about 10-11pm each night after the children had gone to bed. He did not cease communicating with the respondent on domestic matters.

During this period, the petitioner would have his dinners at home, his clothes were washed at home. He continued to do the things which he normally had done before he left. He continued to use the respondent`s car as before, although he alleged that she had, before his departure, agreed to allow him to use the car as he was maintaining it. According to the respondent, she did not stop or object to the petitioner continuing to use the car as she still regarded him as the husband who was not treating the marriage as at an end. He continued to pay all the expenses of the flathold. He continued to have sexual intercourse with the respondent as if his marital life had not ended. In other words, except for the fact that he did not sleep in the flat, the petitioner was carrying on a normal domestic life.

According to the petitioner, he went home only five times a week during this period. The frequency dropped to three to four times a week after the first year. He said that he came home not because he wanted to see the respondent but because he wanted to be with his children. He did not want them to feel `inferior` and he wanted to look after their education. He, however, admitted that he did not tell his daughters that he had left or was leaving their mother as they knew he was not sleeping at home. He also said that during this period, he had sexual intercourse with his wife a couple of times out of compassion and in attempts to reach a reconciliation.

The respondent became pregnant in March 1984. The petitioner was very annoyed about the pregnancy as he had been assured that she was `safe`. He did not want the child in their estranged circumstances and, accordingly, requested her to terminate the pregnancy. She refused and he was annoyed, as a result of which he refused to take her out on family outings, and seldom spoke to her. He continued to come home three times a week and followed the same pattern of behaviour described earlier. The petitioner was so annoyed at the respondent`s refusal to terminate her pregnancy that when the child, a son, was born in November, he refused to look at or carry him for up to six months. He relented after that period. However, it would appear that he was not sufficiently annoyed as to refuse to do anything in connection with the child. He had fetched the respondent to the hospital early in the morning, and stayed behind until the child was delivered. His explanation for behaving as such was that the respondent had no one to help her and not because he regarded her as his wife. He also said that he fetched the respondent home from work not because she was his wife but because he would have done it for anybody else since it did not cause him any inconvenience.

The respondent`s version of the events was somewhat different. She testified that she could not remember what they quarrelled about in July 1982, but she was provoked and when he told her that he could not live with her any more, she told him he could leave for good. Subsequently, she pleaded with...