Noor Azizan bte Colony (alias Noor Azizan bte Mohamed Noor) v Tan Lip Chin (alias Izak Tan)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 12 July 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 121
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 817 of 2005
• Date: 12 July 2006
• Published date: 13 July 2006
• Year: 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Cheow Hin (CH Partners)
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 121
• Defendant Counsel: Pang Khang Chau (Deputy Senior State Counsel),Kanagavijayan Nadarajan (Kana & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Decree of divorce made by Syariah Court following breakdown of marriage,Syariah court,Muslim Law,Whether decree dissolving entire marriage relationship between parties whether under Muslim law or Women's Charter,Section 35(2) Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 1999 Rev Ed), s 7(b) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed),Husband and Muslim wife marrying under Women's Charter,Husband converting to Islam and second marriage ceremony under Muslim law taking place

12 July 2006 Judgment reserved.

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 This case raises a very important issue regarding the effect of a decree of divorce of the Syariah Court in the case of parties who first married under the provisions of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) and subsequently under Muslim law.

2 The plaintiff, Mdm Noor Azizan bte Colony (alias Noor Azizan bte Mohamed Noor) (“Mdm Noor Azizan”), was a Muslim when she married Mr Tan Lip Chin (“Mr Tan”), then a non-Muslim, under the Women’s Charter on 22 September 1997 (“the Women’s Charter marriage”). Subsequently, Mr Tan became a Muslim and the couple went through a Muslim marriage ceremony at the Registry of Muslim Marriages on 24 November 1999. Unfortunately, the marriage broke down and the Syariah Court issued a decree on 30 November 2004 dissolving their marriage.

3 Unsure of the effect of the Syariah Court’s decree on the Women’s Charter marriage, Mdm Noor Azizan instituted the present originating summons and prayed, with the consent of Mr Tan, for the following order:

That the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant registered in the Singapore Marriage Registry as No. 2490 on the 22/9/1997 be declared dissolved and/or otherwise the record/entry of the said marriage be expunged from the records of the Singapore Marriage Registry.

4 At the outset, it ought to be made clear that the question of expunging the Women’s Charter marriage from the records of the Marriage Registry does not arise as it was a valid marriage. As such, the only part of Mdm Noor Azizan’s application that may be considered is whether or not the Women’s Charter marriage had been dissolved by the decree of the Syariah Court on 30 November 2004.

5 Although Mdm Noor Azizan and Mr Tan married under the Women’s Charter and again under Muslim law, they had only one marriage relationship. That there is only one marriage relationship even though a husband and wife may undergo two or more marriage ceremonies has often been stressed. For instance, in Amadasun v Amadasun [1992] 1 FLR 585 at 586, Sir John Arnold P, when referring to a couple’s customary marriage in Nigeria in 1962 and their second marriage in the Lambeth Registry office in London in 1970, said:

[T]he Nigerian customary [marriage] ceremony of 1962 was a valid marriage ceremony and caused these two persons to be married. The result of that is that the ceremony at the registry office in Lambeth in 1970 was of no legal consequence in relation to joining husband and wife together as spouses, whatever other effect it may have had.

6 In a similar vein, in a Hong Kong case, Yeung Yeu-kong v Yeung Fung Lai-mui [1971] HKLR 13, Blair-Kerr J said at 21:

[T]his does not mean that if the first marriage was polygamous, or rather potentially polygamous, and the second ceremony was one designed to create monogamous marital status, the parties, somehow, have two statuses existing side by side. How can it be said that two marriages involving the same parties may exist side by side at any given time? … At any given moment, there is only one subsisting marriage between the parties to it.

7 In the present case, there is no doubt that the Syariah Court acted within its jurisdiction when it dissolved the parties’ marriage on 30 November 2004. Section 35(2) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 1999 Rev Ed) (“AMLA”) provides as follows:

The [Syariah] Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all actions and proceedings in which all the parties are Muslims or where the parties were married under the provisions of the Muslim law and which involve disputes relating to —

(a) marriage;

(b) divorces in the Muslim law as fasakh, cerai taklik, khulul and talak;

…

8 The relevant phrase in s 35(2) of AMLA is ...