Ng Sui Wah Novina v Chandra Michael Setiawan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 15 May 1992
• Date: 15 May 1992
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1264 of 1991
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ng Sui Wah Novina

Plaintiff

and

Chandra Michael Setiawan

Defendant

[1992] SGHC 129

Lai Siu Chiu JC

Originating Summons No 1264 of 1991

High Court

Civil Procedure–Foreign judgments–Divorce decree granted by foreign court–Whether Singapore court should recognise foreign divorce decree–Whether Singapore court had jurisdiction to enforce foreign decree of divorce–Conflict of Laws–Foreign judgments–Enforcement–Divorce decree granted by foreign court–Whether Singapore court can make enforcement order–Conflict of Laws–Foreign judgments–Recognition–Appropriate forum–Comity–Factors of validity–Family Law–Maintenance–Child and wife–Wife claimed maintenance for herself and child of marriage–Application by husband to strike out claim–Prior divorce proceedings in another jurisdiction–Whether court has jurisdiction to order maintenance after divorce granted in another jurisdiction

The plaintiff wife, a Hong Kong citizen, married her Indonesian husband, the defendant, in Jakarta. The wife eventually left for Canada with their child, where she became a citizen. The husband filed for divorce in Indonesia. The Indonesian court granted a decree against the wife in absentia (“the Indonesian proceedings”). In that decree, custody of the child was granted to the wife. The husband agreed to make monthly payments for the child's maintenance. No provision was made for the wife's maintenance.

The wife claimed that she was unaware of the Indonesian proceedings. She then sued the husband in Singapore for maintenance for herself and the child in her capacity as a “former wife”, pursuant to s 107 (b) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353) (“the Charter”), and not under s 61 which would be the case had the divorce been in the Singapore courts.

The husband applied to strike out this application, arguing that the issues raised had already been adjudicated upon and determined in the Indonesian proceedings. In the alternative, the husband argued that the Singapore court had no jurisdiction and/or was not the proper forum to hear the wife's claim.

Held, allowing the husband's application and dismissing the wife's application:

(1) The court did not have the jurisdiction to grant the orders prayed for in the wife's application because another court had adjudicated on the matters in question and the other court was the more appropriate forum for the wife's application. The court of domicile was the proper tribunal to dissolve a marriage. Its decisions should, as far as reasonably possible, be acknowledged by other countries in the interests of comity. The Indonesian decree of divorce did not offend against natural justice and was not to be considered invalid in Singapore: at [25] to [27].

(2) The court's powers under Pt IX of the Charter, in particular s 107, were ancillary to the powers to grant a decree of divorce and could not be invoked by the wife as a Singapore court did not previously dissolve her marriage with the husband. There were no compelling reasons why the court should not accept that the parties were divorced. The wife, in tacking her claim under s 107, accepted that she was divorced from the husband: at [25] and [26].

(3) The wife, in requesting the court to make a pronouncement on the arrears of maintenance, was in effect praying for an enforcement order. This application was misconceived; the wife should apply to the Indonesian court for enforcement of the maintenance order which it made. It was not for the Singapore court to speculate on the outcome if such an application was made: at [28].

Gomez v Gomez [1983-1984] SLR (R) 707; [1984-1985] SLR 483 (refd)

Igra v Igra [1951] P 404 (folld)

Letchme v Gopal [1979-1980] SLR (R) 347; [1978-1979] SLR 596 (refd)

Wood v Wood [1957] P 254; [1957] 2 All ER 14 (refd)

Interpretation Act (Cap 1,1985 Rev Ed)s 6

Penal Code (Cap 224,1985 Rev Ed)s 494

Rules of the Supreme Court1970,TheO 5rr 3, 4 (2) (b), O 18r 19

Women's Charter (Cap 353,1985 Ed)ss 61, 106, 107,115 (3), Pt IX

Women's Charter (Matrimonial Proceedings) Rules 1981 (S 232/1981)rr 37, 38

Choy Wei Nung (G Raman & Partners) for the plaintiff

Stephen Soh (David Lim & Partners) for the defendant.

Lai Siu Chiu JC

1 The plaintiff filed the above application on 24 December 1991, claiming the following reliefs against her former husband:

(a) that he pays her such monthly sum for her maintenance from such date as the court deems fit;

(b) that he pays her such lump sum or secured provision for her maintenance as the court deems fit;

(c) that he pays such monthly sum for the maintenance of the child of the marriage, Jeanie Mo Wan Chan, from such date as the court deems fit; and

(d) further or other relief as the court deems fit.

2 An affidavit was filed by the plaintiff in support of her application which I shall refer to later.

3 Initially, the defendant's solicitors entered a conditional appearance to the summons with a view to setting it aside. For some reason, the intended course of action was not pursued. Instead, on 28 January 1992 by way of summons-in-chambers entered No 472 of 1992, the defendant's solicitors applied for the following orders:

(a) to strike out the plaintiff's application, alternatively, to stay all further proceedings in this action and/or to dismiss it under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (“the RSC”) and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that:

(i) (A) it discloses no reasonable cause of action;

(B) it is frivolous or vexatious or;

(C) may embarrass the fair trial of the action; or

(D) is an abuse of the process of the court; or

(E) is irregular in that it does not comply with O 5 rr 3 and 4 (2) (b) of the RSC.

(ii) further, or in the alternative, that the issues raised by the plaintiff in this action have been adjudicated upon and determined in an action between the parties in the Central Jakarta District Court, Indonesia, under Civil Law Suit No 129/PDT.g.11/1986/PN.JKT. PST;

(iii) further, or in the alternative, that this court has no jurisdiction and/or is not the proper forum to hear the plaintiff's claim;

(f) that all further proceedings in this action be stayed pending the hearing of this application; and

(g) that the plaintiff pays the defendant's costs...