Tay Ah Hoe (m w) v Kwek Lye Seng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 12 June 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 120
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 20 December 2012
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bonnie Kwok [Hoh & Partners]
• Defendant Counsel: Leong Keng Kheong [Leong Chua & Wong]
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 120

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The Petitioner married the Respondent in 1977. The Petitioner is a cleaner and the Respondent a butcher by occupation. They have two children, a son born in June 1979 and a daughter born in July 1987. They are thus 17 years and 9 years old respectively. The Petitioner petitioned for divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour by the Respondent and the essential particulars were that the Respondent deserted the Petitioner from 12 May 1994. There were also allegations of the Respondent s liaison with other woman since 1989 but it appears that this conduct was tolerated by the Petitioner (in the stoic sense) all these years.

The Petitioner also alleged that the Respondent had a violent temper and often assaulted her and her son. However, there was no allegation that the Respondent ill-treated the daughter at all. The Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition and an affidavit disputing the allegations of the Petitioner. At the hearing of the petition counsel for both parties said that their clients accept that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and the Respondent then declined to contest the petition. I was satisfied that the Respondent had deserted the Petitioner from 12 May 1994 and, therefore, granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months. The parties then asked for a consent order on the ancillary matters (including the division of the matrimonial flat) other than the question of access and maintenance to the children. They had, however, agreed that, by consent, custody of the children to be given to the petitioner with reasonable access to the Respondent. The Respondent s counsel stated that the Respondent wished to have access to the daughter only from 5pm to 11pm on Sundays. The Petitioner had no objection but asked that the access time be shorter and that the Respondent should not take the child out of her home during the access time. Her only ground was that the child does not wish to see her father and the Petitioner fears that the child might be ill-treated if she is taken out of her home. In particular, her counsel said that the child suffers from asthma.

In making orders concerning the custody and access to children in divorce proceedings the well-being and welfare of the children or child are of paramount importance. This means that when taking all factors into consideration the primary purpose is to determine whether the orders to be made are in the interests of the...