Essay: Divorce Under Women Charter 2009: Behavioral Grounds And Separation.

Women Charter 2009 and Right to File a Writ for Divorce

Question:

Discuss about the Family Law for Comparative Family Studies.

The issue in this case is to find out whether X can claim divorce from Y or not in accordance to the Women Charter 2009.

According to section 95 (1) of the Women Charter 2009 any of the parties involved in a marriage has the right to file a writ in relation to a divorce where the relationship of marriage between them has irretrievably broken down.

According to section 95(2) of the WC, the court which hears the proceedings shall as far as it is reasonable to do so can, investigate into the situations which have been alleged as leading or causing the irretrievably breakdown of the marriage relationship. Where the court is satisfied upon investigation that it would be just and reasonable to dissolve the marriage based on such situation the court may pass an order of dissolution.

The court in accordance to Subsection 3 would not hold that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and subsequently not provide a divorce unless a few specific situations laid down in the subsection have taken place.

The defendant behaved in such a way that it cannot be reasonably expected from the plaintiff to stay with the defendant any further.

In the case of Teo Hoon Ping v Tan Lay Ying Angeline [2009] SGHC 244 divorce had been granted by the court on the basis of the provisions of section 95 that the marriage has broken down in irretrievably because the appellant had acted in such a way that his wife could not be reasonably expected to live with him any further. The appeal has been dismissed by the court. In this case the wife had made a complaint that the husband was not being loving and caring in the relationship and was also not treating the wife with respect. The wife had also made complaints in relation to violent outburst and unstable behavior of the husband (Quah, 2015).

The defendant had deserted the plaintiff for a minimum period of two years immediately before the writ has been filed.

The parties involved in the marriage had been apart for a period of three years continuously immediately before the writ has been filed and the defendant has consented to the grant of such judgment.

The parties involved in the marriage had been apart for a period of four years continuously immediately before the writ has been filed.

Behavioral Grounds for Divorce under Women Charter 2009

In the case of Ho Kiang Fah v Toh Buan Eileen [2009] SGHC 19 an appeal had been made against the decisions of the district court. The district court in the case had granted a divorce petition in favor of the respondent as the appellant had been living in separation from the respondent for more than a period of four years. The court of appeal rejected the appeal in favor of the respondent and held that she had sufficient grounds to claim divorce under section 95(3)(c) (Witte & Hauk, 2017).

According to subsection 4 the court may consider any circumstances which include the conduct of the parties as well as the interest of the children to the marriage if any in order to determine whether it would be reasonable and just to give a judgment. However if the court finds out that it would be unreasonable to dissolve the marriage under all circumstances the court would dismiss the application of the divorce.

According to subsection 7 while taking into account the effects of subsection 3 whether the time which the parties to the marriage have lived apart no consideration shall be made in relation to any one period which is not more than six months or any two periods which is not more than six months in total in which the parties started to live with each other. However consideration would be made for any period in which the parties lived with each other.

In the given situation it has been provided that X and Y have been married for a period of 7 years. Y as she want does not want to live with X until and unless X parts with his snake. As a result Y leaves the matrimonial house. X and Y lived separately for several months where X was only getting knowledge about Y’s position from the mental hospital where Y had been a patient. However upon the discharge of Y she refused to go home with X due to the fact that the snake was still present with him. The couple has not been living together for a period of six and a half year. Here X has the right to make a claim in relation to the provisions of 95(c) (2) upon behavioral grounds. Here Y suffers from mental illness. Where the snake is not causing any harm it is reasonable for Y to cohabit with X. however a cross petition can be filed by Y in this case as she might claim keeping the snake is a behavioral misconduct.  Y is causing significant hardship by X by not staying with him and not keeping any contact with him and thus a claim for divorce may be allowed as it was in the Ho Kiang Fah case.

Case Law Examples on Behavioral Grounds for Divorce

In addition X also has the right to claim for a divorce under section 95(3) (d) and 95 (3) (e) as Y has not been living with her since six and a half years. The separation of X and Y is physical. There is a element of mental separation as well as the parties are in no contact with each other apart for X providing financially for Y’s care. Under section 95(4) it may be possible that the court would not grant the divorce taking into account the conduct of the parties and the effect of the dissolution of Y as she is not mentally stable. However the chances that X would be provided with a divorce are high as he has not given any consent for the separation.  The court may also restrain to provide a divorce by considering the financial hardship for Y. however of the court is sure that the divorce is required it may allow it by proving some financial compensation to Y.

Conclusion

X is likely to be provided with a divorce under the provisions of the Women Charter 2009.

The issue in this case is to determine whether H can claim a divorce under the Women Charter 2009

The court in accordance to Subsection 3 would not hold that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and subsequently not provide a divorce unless a few specific situations laid down in the subsection have taken place.

The defendant behaved in such a way that it cannot be reasonably expected from the plaintiff to stay with the defendant any further.

In the case of Teo Hoon Ping v Tan Lay Ying Angeline [2009] SGHC 244 divorce had been granted by the court on the basis of the provisions of section 95 that the marriage has broken down in irretrievably because the appellant had acted in such a way that his wife could not be reasonably expected to live with him any further. The appeal has been dismissed by the court. In this case the wife had made a complaint that the husband was not being loving and caring in the relationship and was also not treating the wife with respect. The wife had also made complaints in relation to violent outburst and unstable behavior of the husband.

The parties involved in the marriage had been apart for a period of three years continuously immediately before the writ has been filed and the defendant has consented to the grant of such judgment.

Divorce on Grounds of Separation under Women Charter 2009

The parties involved in the marriage had been apart for a period of four years continuously immediately before the writ has been filed.

In the case of Ho Kiang Fah v Toh Buan Eileen [2009] SGHC 19 an appeal had been made against the decisions of the district court. The district court in the case had granted a divorce petition in favor of the respondent as the appellant had been living in separation from the respondent for more than a period of four years. The court of appeal rejected the appeal in favor of the respondent and held that she had sufficient grounds to claim divorce under section 95(3)(c) (Das, 2015).

In JBB v JBA [2015] SGHCF 6 also the court ruled against the husband where the wife had made a complaint against him that she can reasonably stay with him any longer because of his behavior. In this case upon the implementation of the objective test it had been determined by the court that it was really unreasonable for the wife to stay with the husband on behavioral grounds and therefore the court provided the judgment in favor of the wife and dismissed the appeal with cost (Statsky, 2014).

According to subsection 4 the court may consider any circumstances which include the conduct of the parties as well as the interest of the children to the marriage if any in order to determine whether it would be reasonable and just to give a judgment. However if the court finds out that it would be unreasonable to dissolve the marriage under all circumstances the court would dismiss the application of the divorce.

In the given situation it has been provided that H and W have been married for a period of 30 years. Differences are growing between parties to the marriage and it is getting difficult for them to live together. This is because the wife W has been lately taking interest in women’s rights and radical politics. H the husband is being embarrassed because he is receiving several taunts form his friends about his wife going out of control. W has also provided H that she is not going to do the household work by claiming she is not a slave. W is also not participating with H socially and making fun of his social engagements. W had also made H wait on the doorstep for more than two hours intentionally until she provided him keys to the house. Therefore H wants a divorce for from Y. In the given situation H has the right to make a claim of divorce against W based on the provisions of section 95 where the marriage irretrievably broken down. This claim can specifically be made under section 95(3) (b) in relation to behavioral grounds. According to the objective test of reasonable co-habilitation as provided in the JBA case if a reasonable person is put in the position of H it would not be possible him to reasonably continue living with Y because of her behavior. This is because W is not respecting any values which H has and reasonably making his life difficult. Additionally W is intentionally causing difficulties to H in relation to their living together. The only reason why W does not want a divorce in the given situation is that W’s mother C has provided that any of her children who take a divorce would be removed from any right of inheritance. W gas no other affection or reason to continue to live with Y

However in the given situation it would be difficult for H to take support of the provisions which have been provided in Section 95 (3)(d) and 95 (3)(e) related to three and four years of desertion respectively as there is little evidence to establish actual desertion due to the withdrawal not being complete. Possibly the court may have also not provided divorce under the provisions of section 95(4) of the WC as it may be considered that W may be subjected to hardship following the divorce. However in the given situation it is really not possible for H to continue living with W because of her behavior. She is not financially unstable and also they do not have any children who may be affected due to the divorce.

Conclusion

Therefore in the given situation H has the right to seek divorcer from W on behavioral ground. 

References

Das, M. (2015). Singapore's Women's Charter: Revolution or Evolution?. In Our Lives to Live: Putting a Woman's Face to Change in Singapore (pp. 159-166).

Ho Kiang Fah v Toh Buan Eileen [2009] SGHC 19

JBB v JBA [2015] SGHCF 6

Ong, D. S. (2015). Divorce, the family court and family lawyering. Routledge Handbook of Families in Asia, 411.

Quah, S. E. L. (2015). Negotiating Family and Divorce in Singapore. In Perspectives on Marital Dissolution (pp. 35-50). Springer Singapore.

Statsky, W. (2014). Family law: The essentials. Nelson Education.

Sun, S.H.L., Ee Chong, W. and Lim, S.H., 2014. Gender and divorce in contemporary Singapore. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, pp.127-143.

Teo Hoon Ping v Tan Lay Ying Angeline [2009] SGHC 244

Witte Jr, J., & Hauk, G. S. (Eds.). (2017). Christianity and Family Law: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Women Charter 2009