Overview of Divorce Procedure in Singapore

Whether the divorce would have an impact on X’s financial position and her right to inheritance after X’s death

In the legal parlance, the term ‘divorce’ refers to the statutory procedure signifying termination of marital relationship. The first and foremost ground for termination of marriage is that the marriage has been permanently broken down and under no circumstances; the parties to the marriage can live together as spouses.

The Family Justice Courts has jurisdiction to deal with civil matters such as marriages and the Women’s Charter governs the laws related to dissolution of marriages in Singapore. There are certain grounds based on which a person may file a divorce application and such grounds merely establish the fact that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down. However, there are certain per-conditions for divorce as well which are as enumerated as below:

1. Married for at least 3 years- it is mandatory to be married for minimum 3 years before filing a divorce application. According to section 94 of the Women’s Charter, unless the person filing the divorce petition has been married for 3 years. nevertheless, in particular cases, a divorce may be filed before the completion of 3 years of marriage provided the person filing the petition establishes that he/she has suffered exceptional hardship or his/her spouse has been extraordinarily cruel and unreasonable.
2. Domicile- the applicant or his/her spouse must be a permanent citizen of Singapore or treat the country as his/her permanent abode. The applicant must have been residing in the country for 3 years immediately before the commencement of the divorce proceedings.

• Unreasonable Behavior- the applicant must establish that his/her spouse has behaved in a way that makes it is reasonably impossible for the applicant to live together.
• Adultery- the applicant must establish that his/her spouse has committed adultery and it is intolerable for the applicant to reside with him/her.
• Separation- the applicant must establish that his/her spouse has been separated from him/her for 3 years or a period of 4 years and they are living apart from each other.
• Desertion- the applicant must establish that his/her spouse has deserted him/her for at least 2 years immediately prior to the commencement of the divorce proceedings.

The ground based on which Y wishes to file a divorce application is the ground of separation. In Singapore, the applicants may establish the claim of separation wither informally without any written document or through a separation agreement and lastly, through a judicial separation judgment. In Singapore, a marriage can be proved to be irretrievably broken either on fault or a no fault basis on part of either or both the spouses. In the event a divorce petition is filed on no-fault basis, the applicant must establish the following grounds as stipulated under section 95(3)(d) and (e) of the Women’s Charter:

• The applicant and his/her spouse has been living apart for a period of 3 years continuously prior to the filing of the divorce proceeding and under such circumstance the consent of the spouse is essential to obtain a grant of divorce judgment;
• The applicant must establish that the applicant and spouse have been residing apart for 4 years continuously prior to the commencement of the divorce proceedings. In this case, the consent of the spouse is the not essential to obtain a divorce judgment.

• any assets that has been acquired by one or both the parties in marriage or assets received by one or both the parties to marriage that has been substantially improved during the marriage by both or either party to the marriage (Quah, 2015).
• it excludes assets received as gifts or inheritance acquired by either or both the parties to the marriage and assets that have not been improved after the marriage by either party or both the parties to the marriage. It also does not any asset that is not a matrimonial home.

In ANJ v ANK [2014] SGHC 189 (‘the GD) 2 CA 102/2014, the court set out an approach to determine a fair and equitable proportion of assets to be provided to the parties after the divorce.  According to section 112 (1) of Women’s Charter, firstly, the court shall assign a preliminary ratio to the parties based on the direct financial contributions of the parties to the matrimonial assets and secondly it shall assign another ratio depending on the indirect contributions to the well-being of the family. An average of the basis of proportions shall be decided by the court using the two percentage ratios. However, the court may tilt the average ratio in favor of either party depending on factors like length and size of the marriage, matrimonial assets and the nature and extent of indirect contributions made by either party.

On the facts here, the parties to the marriage, X and Y have been married for 7 years. Due to Y’s hobby of keeping of reptiles, Y had a snake. X wanted Y to get rid of the snake but he kept it to a spare room. However, Y left the matrimonial home and both the parties were not in contact with each other. Even when Y heard of X being a mental hospital suffering from insane delusions about snakes, X refused to return home with Y after she was discharged.

Grounds for Divorce in Singapore

The parties were living apart for six and a half years and X wanted to divorce Y. As per the divorce law in Singapore, Y may successfully file a divorce petition as the pre-conditions of divorce are fulfilled. X and Y have been married for more than 3 years and they treat Singapore as their permanent abode. Y must establish that he and his spouse have been living separately for six and half years, which satisfies the condition that they have been living apart for an incessant period of more than 4 years.

Under such circumstances, it is not necessary for X to give her consent and Y may be granted a divorce judgment. As per the facts, X opposes the divorce but shall not be successful as her consent is not necessary or mandatory. In regards to her financial position after the divorce, the court shall divide the matrimonial assets fairly and in equitable proportion between both the parties to the marriage under section 112(1) of the Women’s Charter. The court shall also take into consider the length of the marriage, age of the parties, any disability of the party, the size of the matrimonial assets and the direct and indirect financial contribution made by either or both the parties in the marriage. Based on these factors, the court may tilt the balance of proportion towards either party, which in this case, points towards X owing to her mental disability that resulted from the snake kept by Y.

In regards to the right of inheritance after the divorce, X shall be entitled to matrimonial assets, which includes assets that have been acquired prior to marriage by one or both parties or have been improved substantially during the marriage by the either or both X and Y. The assets may also include assets that have been used either of transportation, shelter, education, household, recreational purposes.

Conclusion

Y may obtain divorce on the ground of separation and X shall be entitled to a fair proportion of matrimonial assets after the completion of the divorce proceedings.

Whether H can obtain a divorce under Women’s Charter 2009

In Singapore, divorce may be obtained is either spouse establishes that the two spouses cannot be expected to continue to reside with each other and that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down. According to section 95 (3)(b) of the Women’s Charter states that the aggrieved spouse may show that the other spouse has behaved in a manner which makes it unreasonable for the aggrieved spouse to live together (Chan Lai Cheng & Pfeifer, 2015).

Division of Matrimonial Assets

The Ground Of ‘Unreasonable Behavior’ includes any conduct, active or passive, or omission of any conduct on part of the other spouse (Emery, 2013). In order to establish that it cannot be reasonably expected from the aggrieved spouse to live with the other spouse, the court shall have regards to the character, attitude and the demeanor of both the spouses throughout the marriage. In Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt, the court held that it is insufficient to state that the parties to the marriage do not have anything in common and they are incompatible.

The Court Shall Test The Unreasonable Behavior Alleged Against The Other Spouse To Determine Whether It Is Reasonably Expected From The Aggrieved Spouse To Live together with the other spouse as was established in Castello Anna Paula Costa Fusillier v Lobo Carlos Manuel Rosado. The court shall consider the behavior, conduct of both the spouses, and determine whether such conduct or omissions would affect the marriage to the extent that it cannot be reasonably expected for the aggrieved person to live with the other spouse. The court shall also have regards to the overall impact of such behavior for a long period. In Wong Siew’s case, the court ruled that a series of acts or omissions should be such that if taken over a considerable time, the acts or omissions shall be perceived to be unreasonable for the aggrieved person to live with the other spouse.

On the facts here, H and W were married for 30 years and H was always involved in Black magic. H and W have become alienated from each other for years, in particular, after their daughter left home. W joined some adult education classes and have been engaged in radical politics and women’s rights. H often felt embarrassed when his friends taunted about his wife going out of his control. On the other hand, W refused to socialize with H, refusing to attend Black magic dinner and dance.

W’s acts included her changing of door locks disabling H to enter the conjugal home and kept him waiting for two hours before giving the keys to him. Further, W felt reluctant to cook and clean for him. These conduct led H wish to apply for divorce and the ground based on which H may apply for divorce is unreasonable behavior under section 95 (3) (b) of the Women’s Charter.

The Court shall determine the conduct of W and H while deciding whether it is unreasonable to expect from H to love with W. As discussed above in the Wong Siew’s case, the acts or conduct of the other spouse must be such that when all the acts or conducts are taken into consideration together over a significant time, it would establish that the behavior of the other spouse is such that it cannot be expected from H to reside with her.

She change the door locks of the matrimonial home and did not let H enter the house for two hours in response to H’s statement ‘get out or shape up’. Further, when, H moved into the house she refused to clean or clean for him, thus, not performing any of the conjugal rights that is otherwise performed by wives. Furthermore, she refuses to socialize with H, as she does not believe in black magic that H is involved in. W claims that she is no longer H’s slave and shall not cook or clean or perform her conjugal responsibilities. On the contrary, despite being embarrassed of his wife’s involvement in radical politics, H has not conducted in a manner as W.

These acts rather failure to act properly are sufficient for H to establish that it is not possible for him to live with W. Further, as per the test to determine unreasonable behavior, the court shall take into consideration all the actions and omission of W and H to decide whether it is reasonable to expect H to reside with W.

Conclusion

H is entitled to obtain divorce under section 95(3) (b) of the Women’s Charter.

Reference List

ANJ v ANK [2014] SGHC 189 (‘the GD) 2 CA 102/2014

Castello Anna Paula Costa Fusillier v Lobo Carlos Manuel Rosado [1978]

Chan Lai Cheng, J., & Pfeifer, J. E. (2015). Postdivorce Adjustment in Singapore: Factors, Themes, and Positive Growth. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 56(6), 429-450.

Emery, R. E. (Ed.). (2013). Cultural sociology of divorce: An encyclopedia. Sage Publications.

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

Quah, S. E. L. (2015). Introduction. In Perspectives on Marital Dissolution (pp. 1-14). Springer Singapore.

Women’s Charter2009

Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt [1994] 2 SLR 115