Sivarajan v Sivarajan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A V Winslow J
• Judgment Date: 19 October 1972
• Neutral Citation: [1972] SGHC 17
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 5 of 1971
• Date: 19 October 1972
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1972
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Citation: [1972] SGHC 17
• Defendant Counsel: Arul Chandran (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sections 3 and 80 WomenÂ’s Charter (Cap 47, 1970 Rev Ed),Whether husband liable to provide maintenance for wife,Whether foreign divorce order should be recognized by Singapore court,Wife,Husband domiciled in Singapore at time of divorce,Conflict of Laws,Family Law,Divorce outside country,Foreign judgments,Divorce order obtained outside country,Recognition,Sections 60(1)(c) and 80 WomenÂ’s Charter (Cap 47, 1970 Rev Ed),Maintenance

In this appeal against the judgment of the eighth Magistrate dated 1 March 1971 ordering maintenance in the sum of $200 per month to be paid by the appellant to the respondent, with effect from 1 June 1970, under s 60(1)(c) of the Women`s Charter (Cap 47, 1970 Ed) for neglecting to provide maintenance for her as his wife, the appellant contended that although he married the respondent in India in 1966 he obtained a divorce from her in the Court of the Munsif at Tellicherry, Kerala State, on 2 January 1970.

The sole issue before the magistrate was whether she was still the wife of the appellant and whether he had neglected to maintain her and he decided that the respondent was still married to the appellant and that the divorce granted by the Court of the Munsif on 2 January 1970 could not be recognised in Singapore.

The magistrate found that the appellant was domiciled in Singapore on that date.

By virtue of the provisions of s 80 of the Women`s Charter therefore, jurisdiction with regard to the dissolution of such a marriage as this which was celebrated on 18 April 1966 in Tellicherry, Kerala State rests with the High Court of Singapore.

There is no doubt that the marriage celebrated at Tellicherry between the parties in 1966 is a valid monogamous marriage. It was celebrated under s 4 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. By virtue of s 6 of that Act a marriage under s 4 may be dissolved by an order of dissolution as provided under s 7 of that Act whereby a husband may present a petition for such dissolution if the place where the marriage was contracted is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of a District Munsif.

The divorce of 2 January 1970 was granted on this basis under s 9 of the Marumakkattayam Act which provides that:

the court shall, on being satisfied after such inquiry as it thinks fit that a marriage which is valid under s 4 was contracted between the parties, by an order in writing declare the marriage dissolved.

The right conferred by this Act to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage is not affected by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 of India by virtue of s 29(2) of that Act.

It is quite clear that if the appellant had merely been a resident here who had obtained a divorce in India on the basis of his being domiciled there, the courts in Singapore would recognise such a divorce. That, however, is not the position in this case. The Court of the District Munsif, Tellicherry, Kerala State, did not...