Sanjeev Sharma s/o Shri Sarvjeet Sharma v Surbhi Ahuja d/o Sh Virendra Kumar Ahuja

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 22 April 2015
• Date: 22 April 2015
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No 1698 of 2013 (Summons No 7877 of 2013) (Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 6 of 2014)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Sanjeev Sharma s/o Shri Sarvjeet Sharma

Plaintiff

and

Surbhi Ahuja d/o Sh Virendra Kumar Ahuja

Defendant

[2015] SGHC 104

Valerie Thean JC

Divorce Suit No 1698 of 2013 (Summons No 7877 of 2013) (Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 6 of 2014)

High Court

Conflict of Laws—Natural forum—Forum non conveniens—Husband and wife marrying in India in accordance with Hindu custom and rites—Husband domiciled and residing in Singapore—Wife domiciled and residing in India—Husband commencing nullity proceedings in Singapore on basis of wife's incapacity or wilful refusal to consummate marriage—Wife initiating separate proceedings in India against husband for dowry harassment, domestic violence and maintenance—Wife applying for nullity proceedings in Singapore to be stayed—Whether nullity proceedings commenced in Singapore ought to be stayed—Whether India clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum than Singapore—Whether special circumstances requiring trial to be conducted in Singapore

The wife was an Indian citizen residing in India and the husband was a Singaporean citizen residing in Singapore. They first married in a traditional Hindu setting in accordance with Hindu custom and rites under the Hindu Marriage Act (Act No 25 of 1955) (India) (‘HMA’) in New Delhi, India. The marriage was subsequently registered in an Indian court pursuant to the Special Marriage Act (Act No 43 of 1954) (India) (‘SMA’) in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India.

After the marriage, both parties moved to Singapore. After a month here, the wife returned to India to seek medical treatment. The husband was at the same time offered a job in San Francisco. As a result, both parties relocated to San Francisco in September 2011. In January 2013, the husband and wife parted ways. The husband returned to Singapore, while the wife returned to India to live with her family.

The husband commenced nullity proceedings in Singapore against the wife on the grounds that the marriage had not been consummated owing to the wife's incapacity or wilful refusal. Thereafter, the wife initiated separate proceedings in India against the husband in relation to dowry harassment, domestic violence, and for maintenance.

The wife then filed the present application for the nullity proceedings in Singapore to be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens. The district judge granted the wife's application and ordered the nullity proceedings in Singapore to be stayed on the condition that the wife commenced divorce proceedings in India within one month. The wife has since commenced divorce proceedings against the husband in India. Dissatisfied with the decision, the husband appealed to the High Court.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The domicile and residence of the parties was a neutral factor in the present case, given that the domicile and residence of the wife and the husband were India and Singapore respectively: at [20] .

(2) The factor concerning the availability of evidence and witnesses was slightly in favour of India being the more appropriate forum in so far as the wife would likely require witnesses from either the USA or India, given that her medical procedures had been conducted there: at [24] .

(3) Apart from the initial four-week stay in Singapore, the parties' previous standard of living was premised on an American quality of life. The wife's future standard of living was premised on the costs of living in India. The Indian courts were therefore better placed to ascertain an appropriate quantum for maintenance: at [28] .

(4) The fact that the issue of whether the HMA or the SMA was applicable garnered such a great divergence in opinion between the parties' respective Indian counsels was a clear indication that this issue of the applicable statute was more appropriate for an Indian court. This was a matter of interpretation of Indian domestic law: at [35] .

(5) Therefore, looking at the matrix of connecting factors in the present case, India was clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum than Singapore. In addition, there was a close factual connection between the wife's divorce suit in India and the husband's nullity suit in Singapore. As a practical matter, it would be best for a single forum (ie, India) to deal with all the issues: at [46] .

(6) There was insufficient evidence to establish that the present dispute would necessarily be plagued by delays if it were to be tried in India. In any event, the fact that proceedings may be dealt with more slowly in another jurisdiction than in Singapore was not, in itself, a sufficient basis for a stay to be avoided: at [50] .

(7) The husband's argument that the wife had intentionally put him in bad light before the Indian courts rang hollow in so far as he had failed to take any action to defend himself in those proceedings. There was also no evidence to suggest that he would not be entitled to a fair trial if he were to defend those proceedings in India: at [53] .

(8) India was clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum than Singapore and there were no special circumstances requiring the trial to be conducted in Singapore. The proceedings in Singapore should therefore be stayed: at [46] and [55] .

[Observation: The most appropriate choice of law rule to decide whether a spouse had wilfully refused or was incapable of consummating the marriage was not yet settled in Singapore, although the law of the domicile of the wife would be a just result on the facts of this case: at [43] and [44] .]

Abidin Daver, The [1984] AC 398 (refd)

BDA v BDB [2013] 1 SLR 607 (refd)

Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena [2015] 6 SCC 353; [2014] INSC 365 (refd)

Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia [1992] 2 SLR (R) 345; [1992] 2 SLR 776 (refd)

CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2008] 4 SLR (R) 543; [2008] 4 SLR 543 (refd)

Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern [1995] 2 SLR (R) 851; [1995] 3 SLR 97 (refd)

Helen Diane Womersley v Nigel Maurice Womersley [2003] SGDC 186 (refd)

JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 391 (refd)

K A Abdul Jaleel v T A Shahida (2003) 4 SCC 166 (refd)

Mala Shukla v Jayant Amritanand Shukla [2002] 1 SLR (R) 920; [2002] 3 SLR 295 (refd)

Ponticelli v Ponticelli [1958] P 204 (refd)

Prapavathi d/o N Balabaskaran v Manjini Balamurugan [2002] SGDC 354 (refd)

R N Engineers v K H Desai 2003 (2) Bom CR 833 (refd)

R Sridharan v The Presiding Officer (9 July 2010) (refd)

Ramsay-Fairfax v Ramsay-Fairfax [1956] P 115 (refd)

Robert v Robert [1947] P 164 (refd)

Ross Smith v Ross Smith [1963] AC 280 (refd)

Smt Guru Bachan Kaur v Preetam Singh 1998 (1) AWC 275 (refd)

Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (refd)

Way v Way [1950] P 71 (refd)

Y Narasimha Rao v Y Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451 (refd)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34 (7)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 47 (1) , 108

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No 2 of 1974) (India) s 438

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (Act No 25 of 1955) (India)

Special Marriage Act 1954 (Act No 43 of 1954) (India) s 18

K Anparasan and Sumyutha Sivamani (Khattar Wong LLP) for the appellant

Ahmad Nizam Abbas (Straits Law Practice LLC) for the respondent.

Valerie Thean JC

Introduction

1 This was an appeal against a decision of a district judge (‘the Judge) to grant a stay of a nullity suit on the ground of forum non conveniens. I heard and dismissed the appeal and now give my grounds of decision.

2 I should mention that this was a decision of the High Court in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction in family matters heard on 8 January 2015. Under s 34 (7) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed), leave must be obtained for such an appeal and no leave has been sought.

The facts

3 The action commenced by the husband was for the marriage to be annulled on the ground that the marriage was not consummated owing either to the wilful refusal and/or incapacity of the wife.

4 The husband was born in India and became a Singaporean citizen in 2007 after working here for a number of years. He is currently residing in Singapore. The wife, also born in India, is an Indian citizen and currently resides in Haryana, India.

The marriage and separation

5 Husband and wife first married on 28 February 2011 in a traditional Hindu setting in accordance with Hindu custom and rites under the Hindu Marriage Act (Act No 25 of 1955) (India) (‘HMA’) in New Delhi, India. They then followed with registration in an Indian court pursuant to the Special Marriage Act (Act No 43 of 1954) (India) (‘SMA’) on 14 March 2011 in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India.

6 After the marriage, both moved to Singapore on 25 March 2011. After a month here, the wife returned to India to seek medical treatment. The husband was at the same time offered a job in San Francisco. As a result, both relocated to San Francisco sometime in September 2011.

7 In January 2013, the husband returned to Singapore, while the wife returned to India to live with her family in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India.

The legal proceedings

8 On 8 April 2013, the husband commenced nullity proceedings in Singapore against the wife on the following grounds:

(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of the wife to consummate it; or

(b) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the wife to consummate it.

9 The wife thereafter initiated separate proceedings in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India against the husband in relation to dowry harassment, domestic violence, and for maintenance. On 4 June...