VRN v VRO

• Judge: Jen Koh
• Judgment Date: 21 May 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 54
• Citation: [2021] SGFC 54
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 29 May 2021
• Docket Number: Divorce No 3497 of 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chen Yiyang (Tan Kim Seng & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Ee Yang (Covenant Chambers LLC)
• Subject Matter: Sections 95(3)(b) and 95(6) of the Women's Charter 353; Plaintiff's alleged motive and agenda in filing writ; that the parties continued living together despite Defendant's alleged unreasonable conduct; the second limb of Section 95(3)(b)
• Hearing Date: 19 March 2021,26 March 2021

District Judge Jen Koh: Introduction

On 26 March 2021, I granted an Interim Judgment dissolving a 18-year marriage between the parties. The husband having appealed this decision, I now set out my reasons.

Brief background about the parties

The parties were married on 20 November 2004 in Singapore. The husband is about 41 years old and is a Manager with the xxx. He has a Degree in Business Administration. The wife is about 42 years old and is a secondary school teacher. She has a university degree. The parties have 2 children, a son aged 15 and a daughter aged 12 this year.

Legal proceedings

On 18 August 2020, the wife filed a writ to dissolve the marriage with the husband on the ground that the 18-year marriage had broken down irretrievably. She relied on Section 95(3)(b) of the Women’s Charter, Cap 353 in that the husband had behaved in such a way that she could no longer reasonably be expected to live with him.

In practice, this fact is often referred to as a defendant’s unreasonable behaviour. In the legal context, it is not (in this case) the husband’s unreasonable behaviour per se ; it is a finding the Court is asked to make that it is no longer reasonable to expect the wife to continue to live with the husband. To quote Professor Leong Wai Kum in Elements of Family Law in Singapore Third Edition at paragraph [6.073]: “the unreasonableness does not describe the defendant’s behaviour…it instead qualifies the expectation that the plaintiff continue to live with the defendant”.

The husband contested the writ and filed a Defence on 8 September 2020. In his Defence, the husband said that the allegations about his conduct were untrue. On 29 January 2021, the husband obtained leave of Court to amend his Defence. In the amended Defence, the husband alleged that the wife filed the writ because of an intention to abandon the family; that she was involved in an extra-marital affair with one JL and that she also had an improper association with one DM. In the circumstances, the writ was filed so that she could leave the family in furtherance of these alleged relationships and not because of the husband’s behaviour.

In her Amended Reply, the wife denied the extra-marital affair with JL. As for DM, she said that they met on-line and she confided in him because she was lonely; she was aware that it was a “love-scam”. She said that the marriage had broken down even before these alleged relationships occurred. She did not concede that she intended to abandon the family.

The parties filed their respective affidavits of evidence in chief (AEIC) (one each) but because of the amendments, they both filed a second round of AEICs; parties therefore filed 2 AEICs each¹.

Interim Judgment granted on 26 March 2021

The matter came on for trial before me on 19 March 2021 and the evidence concluded on the same day. I granted a short adjournment at the husband’s counsel’s behest as he wanted to tender written submissions which he did on 25 March 2021. At the return date on 26 March 2021, I heard oral submissions from both counsels. I considered the evidence, both parties’ testimonies and the prevailing legal principles. I explained my reasons in brief² and granted the Interim Judgment as I was satisfied that on a balance of probability, this particular wife could not reasonably be expected to live with this husband in light of the latter’s conduct and behaviour.

Issues before the Court

I now set out my reasons, augmenting the brief oral reasons informed to the parties on 26 March 2021. I will deal with several issues which arose from these proceedings, namely: The allegation that the wife had a motive/agenda in filing the writ such that the divorce could not be attributed to the husband’s unreasonable behaviour (if at all); Summons 891 of 2020 – relevance, if any; The fact that the wife did not leave the matrimonial home and continued to stay with the husband, disentitling her from relying on Section 95(3)(b); application of Section 95(6); and In all the circumstances, was the husband’s behaviour in the marriage so unreasonable that the wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him.

Issue (i) - The wife’s motive/agenda in filing the writ

At the trial, I raised a preliminary issue which I requested counsel to address in cross-examination and in submissions. This pertained to the husband’s allegation (in his amended Defence) that the wife had a motive or agenda in filing the writ and if the marriage had broken down, it could not be attributed to his unreasonable behaviour; rather, the wife had an intention to abandon family because of her extra-marital affair with JL and her improper association with DM. The issue I requested counsel to address was: did this alleged motive on the wife’s part qualify the husband’s unreasonable behaviour (if proven), bearing in mind further, that (1) he did not file a Counterclaim and (2) the matters raised in his pleadings and AEICs³.

Relationship with JL

The husband said that the wife was involved in an extra-marital affair with one JL and in support thereof, he relied on a private investigator’s report dated 20 November 2020⁴. The wife was cross examined on this relationship; why she had visited and/or stayed overnight at JL’s residence; gone grocery shopping with JL and also deleted her whatsapp messages with him⁵. Counsel cross examined her; asking if she felt she was entitled to this relationship because she was unhappy with the husband’s relationship with a woman known to her as Felicia⁶ (discussed below).

In her replies, the wife explained that JL is a friend from her junior college days; that she confided in him about her personal issues (without details) and that going to his residence offered her a “breather” from the tensions of the marriage. She described him as a “good friend”⁷. She had stayed overnight only once and slept on the sofa in the living room. She had visited him twice and on one occasion⁸, they went to Watson’s because there was a Member’s Sale. When counsel cross-examined her with regard to proof of her purchases, she said that the items were in her bag⁹. She stayed at JL’s residence as she did not want to incur costs for a hotel or stay with her parents/family members as this would have led to questions she did not want to deal with¹⁰. She deleted the whatsapp messages as she said she did not want the husband or counsel to make an issue of an innocuous friendship and she did not want to drag JL into her marital problems¹¹.

Relationship with DM

The wife was cross examined on her on-line relationship with DM. Counsel referred her to the extracts of her conversations with DM¹². She was asked to confirm that the extracts were a true and accurate reflection of her conversations with DM, which she did. She was asked to confirm that she had filed a police report in October 2019, informing the police that DM was a scammer; that she had sent DM sums of money¹³ and, that she continued to indulge in the relationship with full knowledge that DM was a scammer¹⁴.

The wife said that she suspected DM of being a scammer and confronted him but he was able to explain away her suspicions¹⁵. She said that she started the relationship and carried on with it as DM was “very sweet” in his messages to her and that she “enjoyed the attention” he showed her. She said that counsel could label her a “cheapskate” but she carried on the on-line relationship for the above reasons¹⁶. She also felt it was safe to do so as DM was “far away” (allegedly in the USA); she reiterated that she enjoyed the attention. DM and the wife never met.¹⁷

Findings and decision on Issue (i)

I set out my observations and findings on this issue; some of which were summarized for the parties on 26 March 2021: No conclusive evidence of extra-marital affair with JL and even if proven, did not cause the breakdown of the marriage With regard the allegation of the wife’s extra-marital affair, I find that the evidence did not support that the wife was involved in such an extra-marital relationship with JL. The private investigator’s report did not present direct commission of adultery. There was also no conclusive evidence of inclination and disposition eg intimate touches, holding hands, hugging or anything improper. I refer to Koh Teng Lam v Elsie Chen Chee and anor¹⁸ in which the Court, quoting Ross v Ross¹⁹ held:

“…the mere fact that people are thrown together in an environment which lends itself to the commission of the offence is not enough unless it can be shown by documents, eg letters and diaries, or antecedent conduct that the association of the parties was so intimate and their mutual passion so clear that adultery might reasonably be assumed as the result of an opportunity for its occurrence.”

There was no such evidence in this case. Whilst counsel might attempt to cast a sinister shadow over the wife’s deletion of the whatsapp messages, that by itself did not lend credence to the allegation of adultery in view of the lack of the other elements as set out in Koh Teng Lam’s case. I accepted the wife’s explanation as to why she stayed at JL’s residence on one occasion and why she spent two (2) occasions with him. I find that the husband did not prove conclusively, to the Court’s satisfaction, the wife did indeed commit adultery with JL. Improper association with DM did not cause the breakdown of the marriage With regard to the wife’s online relationship with DM, the husband’s contention that this on-line relationship was improper was made out. But in evidence and cross-examination, the husband ventured to explain the wife’s actions: he said that parties were “in the trough of their marriage”; that the wife faced “loneliness, communication breakdown and my period of transition in my career”; that they were both “victims of our changing environment”²⁰. In oral testimony, the husband also alluded to forgiving the wife...