Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: K S Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 17 February 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 35
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 2598 of 1993
• Date: 17 February 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1994
• Plaintiff Counsel: V Ramakrishnan (V Ramakrishnan & Co)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 35
• Defendant Counsel: Joseph Lopez (David Lim & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with respondent,Grounds for divorce,Irretrievable breakdown,Test to be applied by court,Husband's unreasonable behaviour,Family Law

Cur Adv Vult

The petitioner married the respondent at the Registry of Marriages, Singapore, on 18 January 1989. There are two children of the marriage born on 22 May 1990 and on 24 November 1992. The petitioner has petitioned for divorce on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably by reason that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The particulars of unreasonable behaviour run to 23 paragraphs. In short, the complaint is that the respondent has not shown or only shown little love and affection, little communication and when they did communicate, it ended up in a quarrel.

The respondent`s parents and sisters stayed in the matrimonial home and that had caused problems. The petitioner was deprived of all companionship, had to work long hours and attempts to talk to the respondent would be brushed aside because the respondent wanted to watch television programmes. The respondent was an irresponsible husband who could not discuss matters within the family. Her wish to obtain insurance policies was objected to by the respondent and his family with the result that the petitioner had to take up policies for which she paid with her own money. When the petitioner had to undergo an abortion because of chicken pox during her pregnancy, the husband was uncaring. On a holiday in China, there was a quarrel and the respondent failed to understand the petitioner`s wish to be with her first child who had been left behind. The petitioner`s suggestion to send the first child to a child care centre was not accepted and the petitioner had to make her own arrangements. After giving birth to the second child when she suffered from back pain, the respondent reluctantly agreed to take care of the child. When the petitioner resigned from her job to take care of the second child, the respondent was angry. He claimed he could not bear the home expenses alone. There were more quarrels. Conjugal relationship was irregular.

The respondent always sided with his family whenever there was a quarrel between the petitioner and his family members. When they went out, the respondent would always walk with his mother and sister. This made the petitioner feel inferior, uncared for and unloved. After the second child was born, the respondent neglected taking the petitioner and the two children to parks, beaches or for social outings. The respondent had not introduced any of his friends to the petitioner during the five years of marriage. They had a joint bank account but it was closed shortly after it was opened and the respondent did not reveal how much he earned. He did not tell the petitioner when he lost a job or changed jobs. Many disagreements led to the respondent complaining that the petitioner was a lover of money. When called upon to help out in housework, he nagged all the time. When the petitioner was going to her mother`s house for one of the weekly visits, the respondent told her that no one was stopping her but she did not have to come back to the matrimonial home. The respondent repeatedly maligned the petitioner in the presence of her family. He said she was a crazy woman and money-faced.

Although there are 23 paragraphs of particulars cited, most of the complaints of unreasonable behaviour taken in isolation are in the nature of behaviour arising from the ordinary wear and tear of family life in most homes. The respondent`s claim is that the marriage has not broken down and that the allegations of unreasonable behaviour did not amount to unreasonable behaviour in law, and his reason is that on 22 July 1993, the petitioner chided and taunted the respondent over the monthly personal allowance of $300 provided by the respondent to the petitioner and spat at him, complaining that the amount was too meagre and told the respondent she was not hard up of his money. The respondent had walked away and the petitioner packed her belongings and, together with the two children, left the matrimonial home.

No 13 Jalan Paras

The respondent says that on 17 May 1986 his parents purchased No 13 Jalan Paras, Singapore 1441, as a family home for themselves and the children of the two sons (including the respondent) and three daughters. Being traditional Chinese, they registered the property under the sons` names as joint tenants but, subsequent to the marriage of the respondent, the parents, on 23 January 1991, caused the petitioner to be included as a joint owner of the property with the respondent as she was the eldest daughter-in-law. The property was subsequently transferred to the petitioner and respondent as joint tenants at the request of the respondent`s brother and all charges were paid by the respondent`s parents. The respondent`s mother and sister gave evidence and expressed a wish to save the marriage. That there was a genuine wish to save the marriage came across very forcefully when they gave evidence, but it is alleged that their concern is not genuine. I find as a fact that the mother and sister were sincere in their attempts...