WKI v WKJ

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Geraldine Kang
• Judgment Date: 15 February 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGFC 5
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Year: 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGFC 5
• Docket Number: Divorce No 2070 of 2021
• Hearing Date: 25 March 2022,01 July 2022,26 July 2022,28 October 2022
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Jayagobi s/o Jayaram (Grays LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Narayanan Vijya Kumar (Vijay & Co)

District Judge Geraldine Kang: Brief Background

Parties were married on 2 September 1996, and there are 2 sons to their union who were approaching adulthood. At the time of the hearing before myself, they were 18 and 20 years old.

The Plaintiff / Wife commenced divorce proceedings on the basis that the Defendant / Husband had behaved in such a way that the Plaintiff / Wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The Defendant / Husband contested the application and maintained that the marriage had not irretrievably broken down and that the Plaintiff’s application ought to be dismissed.

It was not disputed that parties shared a fairly good relationship at the beginning of their marriage, with family time which was well spent with the boys. Things unfortunately deteriorated to its present state wherein the Plaintiff / Wife asserts that their marriage has irretrievably broken down due to the Defendant / Husband’s conduct.

At the contested divorce hearing before me, the Plaintiff / Wife called one of their sons as a witness in support of her position.

Having heard all the evidence as well as assessed the credibility of the witness in the proceedings before me, I granted the Plaintiff’s petition for a divorce pursuant to Section 95(3)(b) of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353).

The Defendant / Husband has since appealed against my decision. I shall now set out my reasons.

The Wife’s Case

Over the years, the Husband’s fixation on family routine was not only imposing, uncompromising and controlling, it was also unreasonable as he had no regard for the Wife and/or their children’s wishes. The Husband would unilaterally insist and dictate fixed activities for the family despite them expressing their desire to have some flexibility on their own. As a result of his persistently authoritative and dictative ways, family relations were strained and it was not disputed that conjugal relations have ceased between the parties since sometime in 2010.

Plaintiff’s Witness – “K”

It was unfortunate that K, their younger son, had to come forward to give an insight into their family life and on behalf of the Plaintiff, in support of the dissolution of the marriage.

K testified that over the years, the Defendant would insist on family activities such as meals and activities to be undertaken together with the Defendant, and at times so determined by the Defendant. K felt “forced” by the Defendant to comply with such activities as the Defendant would not take no for an answer; neither would the Defendant acknowledge or accept that as growing teenage boys, they might have other interests or commitments. K also shared that he felt a lack of privacy and respectful boundaries where the Defendant was concerned.

Put simply, the Defendant had no regard for their expressed wishes to have time to themselves. K also testified that his mother was unhappy in the marriage.

The Husband’s Case

The Husband’s perspective of their marriage and family life was diametrically opposed to the Wife’s. He maintained that his conduct fell short of unreasonable and that it was part and parcel of married life, especially over a long marriage. He defended his actions as nothing more than a desire for family bonding and unity.

He vehemently denied that he was unreasonable and/or that their marriage had irretrievably broken down.

Further, he put forth emotive arguments the marriage ought not to be dissolved as he remained dedicated and committed to his marriage and family. He sought and implored reconciliation instead.

The Law and the Court’s Assessment

For ease of reference, the relevant statutory provisions in the Women’s Charter (Cap 353) are set out below. Section 95 (Cap 353) states: (3) The court hearing any proceedings for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the plaintiff satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts: (a) that the defendant has committed adultery and the plaintiff finds its intolerable to live with the defendant; (b) that the defendant has behaved in such a way that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant; (c) that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ; (d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ and the defendant consents to a judgement being granted; (e) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of a least 4 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ. (4) In considering whether it would be just and reasonable to grant a judgement, the court shall consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and how the interests of any child or children of the marriage or of either party may be affected if the marriage is dissolved, and it may make an interim judgment subject to such terms and conditions as the court may think fit to attach; but if it should appear to the court that in all the circumstances it would be wrong to dissolve the marriage, the court shall dismiss the proceedings.

(my emphasis added)

Under s95(3)(b) (Cap. 353), to prove irretrievable breakdown of a marriage comprises of (i) that the defendant has behaved in a certain way (ii) such that it is not reasonable to expect the plaintiff to continue cohabitation with the defendant. Whilst this fact is often referred to as “unreasonable behaviour”, it is trite law that it is not necessary that the defendant’s behaviour bears the hallmark of being “unreasonable” – all that is required is that it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to continue cohabitation. The unreasonableness does not describe the defendant’s behaviour; but qualifies the expectation that the plaintiff continue to live with the defendant.

Any conduct, active or passive, of the defendant is relevant – provided it affected the plaintiff, as observed by the High Court in Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt [1994] 1 SLR(R) 323.

“Whether the [husband’s] behaviour has been such that the [wife] can no longer reasonably be expected to live with him is essentially a finding of fact and the courts have avoided categorizing conduct as guilty or blameless in the abstract. The question whether the plaintiff finds it intolerable to live with the defendant must be answered subjectively: whether his attitude is reasonable is irrelevant . In dealing with behaviour, the question is whether the plaintiff can reasonably be expected to live with the defendant...