VGA v VGB

• Judge: Sheik Mustafa
• Judgment Date: 05 February 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGFC 18
• Citation: [2020] SGFC 18
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 14 February 2020
• Docket Number: FC/OSF 45/2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yap Ying Jie Clement (Eversheds Harry Elias LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: The defendant Husband, unrepresented, absent.
• Subject Matter: Matrimonial law,Divorce,Women's Charter,3-year bar,Leave to commence,Reconciliation,Probability of,Cruelty
• Hearing Date: 30 October 2019,13 November 2019

District Judge Sheik Mustafa: Introduction

The plaintiff is the Wife and the defendant is the Husband. The Wife applied for leave to file a writ of summons for the dissolution of the marriage notwithstanding that 3 years have not passed since the date of the marriage, which was 5 January 2018.

The Husband appeared through counsel and contested the summons, but subsequently discharged his counsel and failed to appear or file any affidavits. At the time of the hearing, the marriage stood at 1 year and 10 months. As the Husband was absent, I heard Counsel for the Wife. I dismissed the application. The Wife appeals against that dismissal.

Background of the case

The parties married in Singapore on 5 January 2018. The Wife filed this application on 12 June 2019.

At the first case conference on 25 June 2019, the Husband appeared through counsel who informed the Court that the Husband was incarcerated and did not consent to the application. The Husband was directed to file an affidavit in reply.

At the following case conference on 14 August 2019, the Husband’s counsel informed the Court that the Husband was going to be released in 4 days, and that counsel had not obtained full instructions, requesting an extension of time of 2 weeks to file the affidavit. There were no objections from the Wife’s counsel.

On 4 September 2019, the Husband’s counsel informed the Court that since the Husband’s release from incarceration, counsel had not been able to contact him, and so he applied to be discharged.

On 17 September 2019, the Husband’s counsel appeared informed the Court that he will file a summons to be discharged from acting for the Husband. The Husband was not present.

At the case conference on 8 October 2019, the Husband’s counsel was discharged. The Husband was again not present. The hearing was fixed. A registrar’s notice was sent to the Husband.

On the day assigned for hearing, the Husband did not appear. He had not filed any affidavit in reply to the Wife’s two affidavits. I proceeded to hear the Wife’s counsel.

Facts presented

The Wife had filed 2 affidavits, one by herself and one by her expert. In her affidavit, the Wife laid her case as follows – She had married the Husband on 5 January 2018, but as soon as 10 January 2018, he began to stay out for long periods of time and was very secretive about his whereabouts. He was rarely at home, leaving home at random times and returning home very late at night. He had affairs with no less than 4 women during the marriage. He forbade the Wife from asking about his whereabouts. He would get upset and violent. The marriage is characterised by bouts of serious domestic abuse inflicted by the Husband on the Wife. The Husband left the Wife with permanent injuries. He also subjected her to a torrent of harassment and psychological abuse. On 14 July 2018 after a serious beating, the Wife moved out. The parties never resumed cohabitation. The Husband was arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau and incarcerated in a Drug Rehabilitation Centre until August 2019. The Wife applied for, and was granted, a personal protection order against the Husband on 16 January 2019. The Husband consented to the order. On 4 February 2019, the Husband, through his solicitors, sent a letter to the Wife “apologising sincerely for the hurt and pain he has caused”. He offered to pay for her medical bills if she agreed to withdraw the personal protection order. The Wife did not do so and the Husband did not pay for her medical bills. The Wife contends that the violence was not of minor instances, and characterised it as “one-sided beatings inflicted by an 80kg man on a helpless 48kg woman”. They resulted in permanent damage in the form of myofascial pain syndrome. She has constant pain, discomfort and headaches. She consulted a specialist who opined that there is a causal link between the abuse and the myofascial pain syndrome that she now suffers. The prognosis of the syndrome is variable, and a recovery may be possible over months or years if repeated triggers (ie. physical abuse) is avoided. The Wife submits that is clear and unchallenged that she has suffered substantial abuse inflicted by the Husband. The Wife further rests her case on the Husband’s adultery, which she describes as “rampant”. The Husband has had relations with at least three women during the course of their short marriage. The Wife adduced evidence of a private investigator’s report in support of this. The Wife also relies on the Husband’s “wanton cruelty” in that he regularly belittled, demeaned, taunted and threatened her. He expressed desire for her to be raped, and other despicable things. The Wife submits that reconciliation is not possible. Her counsel argues that to hold her to wait for the remainder of the three years would be visiting the wrongs of the Husband on her.

Applicable principles

The law to apply on this issue flows from section 94 of the Women’s Charter, which states as follows:

Restriction on filing of writ for divorce during first 3 years of marriage

94.—(1) No writ for divorce shall be...