Seah Cheng Hock v Lau Bian Chin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A V Winslow J
• Judgment Date: 16 July 1969
• Neutral Citation: [1969] SGHC 9
• Citation: [1969] SGHC 9
• Date: 16 July 1969
• Year: 1969
• Plaintiff Counsel: NN Leicester (Leicester & Chen)
• Docket Number: Divorce No 75 of 1967
• Defendant Counsel: J Chellam (Boswell Hsieh & Lim)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

The petitioner founds his petition for divorce on two grounds, viz:

(i) that the respondent has deserted the petitioner without cause as from 28 July 1962 for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition on 8 June 1967; and

(ii) that the respondent has lived separately from the petitioner for a period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and is unlikely to be reconciled with him. It is contended that she has lived separately from the petitioner as from October 1958.

It is not disputed that on 18 April 1966 the petitioner presented an earlier petition for divorce against the respondent in Divorce No 29 of 1966 on the ground of constructive desertion as from 28 July 1962, to which the respondent delivered an answer denying such desertion and that on 9 March 1967 the respondent presented a petition for divorce against the petitioner in Divorce No 30 of 1967 on the following grounds:

(1) cruelty;

(2) desertion as from 28 July 1962; and

(3) adultery to which the petitioner made no answer.

It is also undisputed that on 3 April 1967 both petitions were dismissed since neither petitioner wished to proceed with his or her petition.

The petitioner himself gave evidence and called one witness, Ewan Yap (PW2). The respondent also gave evidence.

After considering the evidence carefully, I have made the following findings on the facts:

(a) The parties first met in or around 1954 in Singapore and later renewed their friendship in London towards the latter part of 1955 soon after which they became engaged. He was then a qualified health inspector with ambitions of becoming a doctor but was unable to find a medical school which would accept him at that time. He accordingly took a diploma course in public health. She, on the other hand, had gone to England a little earlier to continue her music lessons with Mr Fryer, a concert pianist and a professor of music.

(b) In early 1956 she returned to Singapore on the ss Chusan with her sister in order to await his return to Singapore to get married. However, before the Chusan reached Singapore, he commenced bombarding her with telegrams to the ship begging her to fly back to London to marry him as he could not live without her. She accordingly obliged by taking the same boat back on its return voyage and they eventually got married in London in December 1956 because although she was older she felt he needed her in his emotional and depressed state as a student.

(c) In May 1957 it was agreed between the parties that she should return to Singapore because she had become pregnant. Financial considerations also seemed to make that course desirable as well as the fact that in Singapore she could live with her parents and obtain the kind of diet she needed.

(d) In August 1957 the petitioner himself returned to Singapore but, after a short spell together in a flat and then in his parents` home, she left for her own parents` home at 7B Eng Watt Street.

(e) On 3 December 1957 their child Lynette was born at Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital after which the respondent agreed to go back and live with the petitioner and their child at his parents` home. It was at about this time also that she provided him with the caution money necessary to ensure a place for him in Dublin in connection with his medical studies.

(f) In March 1958 they left the home of his parents and went to live with her parents until October 1958 when she saw him off at the airport on his departure for Dublin to further his medical studies. They parted on amicable terms and neither had the slightest intention then of bringing cohabitation to an end despite their physical separation.

(g) It will be seen from my findings of fact relating to the history of the relationship between the parties from the time they first met until October 1958, when he departed from Singapore for Dublin, that I have not accepted the petitioner`s version with regard to three matters, viz:

(i) that the respondent`s reason for leaving England in early 1956 was because the engagement had been broken off;

(ii) that in May 1957 the respondent returned to Singapore from London on her own because of misunderstandings and differences between them and not by virtue of mutual agreement; and

(iii) that their married life had deteriorated to such an extent by October 1958 that when, as he said, he left for Dublin to study medicine, that was not the sole reason for his leaving her and that he would have left her in any ease.

(h) Whereas he said that they were man and wife in name only and that it was the daughter who held them together and whereas he spoke of frequent quarrels between them, that she nagged him and humiliated him and that she was domineering, being five years older than himself, and that they had no friends in common, the respondent, on the other hand, did not strike me as being the type of shrewish termagant that the petitioner tried to make her out to be.

(i) She denied that she was domineering and claimed that she was tolerant and understanding, being an older woman, and that she felt that he needed her. At the beginning she had tried to discourage him from marrying her but he threatened suicide if she would not agree. Her evidence on these matters bears the indicia of sincerity and devotion to his interests. This is borne out, as will be seen later, by her evidence which I accept that, until July 1962, she regularly remitted money, inter alia , from her own earnings as a piano teacher to help him whilst he was pursuing his studies in Dublin. The petitioner tried to minimise her contributions in this respect and attempted to give the impression that he could have managed without them and only accepted them because they were practically forced on him.

(j) I must now deal with his contention that, when he left in October 1958, he left her for good and that he had no intention of ever resuming cohabitation. It is significant that when asked whether he had written loving letters to her, he at first denied writing any more than ordinary civil letters but when taxed with three letters written by him (exh D2) which he wrote during the period 1958 to 1962, he quickly, even without looking at these letters, admitted...