TMO v TMP
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 21 February 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 14 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mohamed Ibrahim and Sri Balan s/o Krishnan (ACHIEVERS LLC) |
Date | 21 February 2017 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 75 of 2016 |
Hearing Date | 30 November 2016 |
Subject Matter | Family Law,Muslims,Issues within jurisdiction of civil court |
Published date | 25 February 2017 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 14 |
Year | 2017 |
This is an appeal against the decision of the judicial commissioner (“the Judge”) declining to grant the appellant-wife (“the Wife”) financial relief under s 121G, Chapter 4A of Part X of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed). The Judge’s decision was reported as
The facts before us are straightforward. The Wife and the respondent-husband (“the Husband”) were married on 13 February 1998 under Muslim law at the Registry of Muslim Marriages in Singapore. The parties have two children, aged nine and 13, who were both born in Singapore.
In 2008, the family relocated to Johor. A few years later, the Husband applied for a divorce in Johor. The Wife alleges that she learnt about this development for the first time on 30 March 2012 when she received a Johor court order dated 20 March 2012 granting interim custody of their children to the Husband. According to the Wife, she did not respond to the custody application as she harboured hopes of reconciling with the Husband.
On 10 April 2012, the Johor Sharia Subordinate Court granted a dissolution of the parties’ marriage. The Wife alleges that the divorce was obtained without her knowledge and that she only became aware of it when her lawyer in Johor performed a search two weeks later. Each party has since remarried.
Subsequently, the Wife brought contempt proceedings against the Husband in the Johor Sharia High Court for non-compliance with a court order dated 15 October 2012. Unfortunately, that order was not in evidence in the proceedings below and the basis for the contempt proceedings remains unclear to us. In any event, on 26 February 2013, the Johor Sharia High Court sentenced the Husband to 14 days’ imprisonment for contempt of court. During his incarceration, the Wife was given custody of their two children.
On 26 September 2012 (before the contempt proceedings were heard), the Wife applied to the Singapore Syariah Court for ancillary relief (subsequent references to the “Syariah Court” refer to the Singapore Syariah Court). She sought, amongst other things, (a)
The Wife then filed an application before the Family Justice Courts under Chapter 4A (Financial Relief Consequential on Foreign Matrimonial Proceedings) of the Women’s Charter for the division of the matrimonial assets. The proceedings were first heard in the Family Courts before a District Judge (“the District Judge”), whose decision was issued as
The Wife’s application was brought pursuant to s 121G of the Women’s Charter. This is found at Chapter 4A in Part X of the Women’s Charter. Chapter 4A was introduced by way of legislation in 2011 in order to provide an avenue for those whose marriages had been dissolved by an order of a foreign court to seek relief in respect of ancillary matters before a Singapore court. Specifically, s 121G provides as follows:
Orders for financial relief
121G. —(1) On an application by a party to a marriage for an order for financial relief, the court may make any one or more of the orders which it could have made under section 112, 113 or 127(1) in the like manner as if a decree of divorce, nullity or judicial separation in respect of the marriage had been granted in Singapore.(2) Sections 112(2) to (10), 114 to 121 and 127(2) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, and as appropriate, to an order made under subsection (1).
(3) Upon the court making a secured order under subsection (1) or at any time thereafter, the court may make any order which the court could have made if the secured order had been made under section 112, 115 or 127.
The question for the court below was whether Chapter 4A and more particularly, s 121G of the Women’s Charter was applicable to Muslim marriages that had been dissolved by a foreign
Dissatisfied with the District Judge’s decision, the Wife appealed to the High Court.
Decision below The allocation to the relevant courts of jurisdiction over these matters is dealt with in part by s 17A of the SCJA. The Judge held that s 17A(1) of the SCJA
The Judge considered that the High Court did have jurisdiction under s 17(a) of the SCJA (see the GD at [5] and [12]) and that this jurisdiction had not been excluded by s 17A(1). Nevertheless, she held that the High Court had no
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ufm v Ufn
...v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (refd) Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGHC 160 (refd) Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] 2 SLR 850, CA (refd) TMO v TMP [2017] 1 SLR 585 (refd) Torok v Torok [1973] 1 WLR 1066 (refd) TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961; [2009] 2 SLR 961 (refd) Traversa v Freddi [2011] 2 FLR 272 (re......
-
Ujm v Ujl
...Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 (refd) Surindar Singh s/o Jaswant Singh v Sita Jaswant Kaur [2014] 3 SLR 1284 (folld) TMO v TMP [2017] 1 SLR 585 (refd) TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 (refd) Legislation referred to Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 112(1), 112(2), 121F(2), 121F(2)......
-
Ujm v Ujl
...(folld) Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor [2021] 2 SLR 116 (refd) Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] 2 SLR 850 (folld) TMO v TMP [2017] 1 SLR 585 (refd) TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 (refd) TUC v TUD [2017] 4 SLR 1360 (refd) UJM v UJL [2021] 2 SLR 1467 (refd) Facts In Noor Azlin bte Ab......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 185; Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 707. 22 TMO v TMP [2017] 1 SLR 585; UDA v UDB [2018] 1 SLR 1015. 23 The Royal Bank of Scotland NV v TT International Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 1104. 24 Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) P......
-
CUSTODY ISSUES – DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CIVIL AND SYARIAH COURTS IN SINGAPORE
...2009 Rev Ed. 7 Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed. 8 See (2016) 17 SAL Ann Rev 604 at 604, para 22.1. 9 [2001] 1 SLR(R) 504. 10 [2003] 1 SLR(R) 433. 11[2017] 1 SLR 585. 12 See s 17A(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed): Notwithstanding sections 16 and 17, the High Court shall ......
-
Muslim Law
...length in a previous edition of this Chapter.2 22.2. Separately, no grounds of decision were issued by the MUIS3 Appeal Board in 2017. 1 [2017] 1 SLR 585. 2 See (2016) 17 SAL Ann Rev 604 at 611–613, paras 22.18–22.23. 3 “MUIS” stands for “Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura”....