Loh Suan Fang v Yeow Chin Yin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: K S Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 37
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 2108 of 1993
• Date: 21 February 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1994
• Plaintiff Counsel: Samantha Poo (Chong Yeo & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 37
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent absent
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Grounds for divorce,Evidence of separation deed not put before the court,Separation deed,Living apart,s 88(3)(d) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Whether facts proved that parties had 'lived apart',Words and Phrases,Family Law,Communication and correspondence between husband and wife,Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1981 r 5(1), Second Schedule Item 1(j),'Lived apart',Husband studying abroad,Court entitled to draw adverse inferences as to existence and contents

The petitioner is an engineer and the respondent is a secretary. The petitioner lawfully married the respondent at the Registry of Marriages, Singapore, on 14 February 1986. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife. There are no children to the marriage.

The petitioner went to the United Kingdom in August 1990. Whilst studying there, the parties wrote to each other and spoke to each other and it is an undisputed fact that they spoke to each other during Christmas of 1990, 1991 and 1992.

On 25 August 1993, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down by reason of the parties having lived separate and apart for a continuous period of at least three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, ie from 22 August 1990. The respondent filed her consent dated 24 August 1993 confirming that the parties had lived apart and that she consented to a decree being granted. The petitioner prayed for the dissolution of the marriage. The petition came up before me as an uncontested petition. I dismissed the petition.

The question was whether the parties had lived apart for a period of three years from 22 August 1990. I was not satisfied that the parties had lived apart from August 1990. A separation deed was entered into in Glasgow in 1991, but the evidence is they regarded themselves as friends and so they talked to each other in December 1991 and December 1992. There is, of course, nothing against couples who are living apart communicating with each other but this was a case where the petitioner was represented by counsel and the separation deed, an important piece of evidence that should have been produced was not produced, and the petitioner must have proceeded to the United Kingdom to study with the respondent`s consent in August 1990.

The petitioner said that the separation deed was signed in Glasgow in 1991 and that the parties wrote to each other for purposes of formalizing the arrangements but the separation deed and correspondence were not produced.

Rule 5 of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules (1981) reads:

(1) Unless otherwise directed, every petition shall contain the information required by the Second Schedule to these Rules.

(2) Every petition shall be signed by the solicitor for the petitioner, or by the petitioner if he is acting in person.

(3) The solicitor for a petitioner shall endorse on the petition his name or the name of his firm and the address of his or of his firm`s place of business within the jurisdiction which shall be an address for service.

Item 1(j) of the Second Schedule of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules (1981) reads:

(1) Every petition other than a petition for jactitation of marriage shall state -

(j) whether or not there are or have been any other proceedings in Singapore with reference to the marriage or to any children of the family or between the petitioner and the respondent with reference to any property of either or both of them and, if so -

(i) the nature of the proceedings;

(ii) the date and effect of any decree or order; and

(iii) in the case of proceedings with reference...