Case Details
- Citation: [2003] SGHC 219
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2003-09-24
- Judges: Lai Siu Chiu J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Castello Ana Paula Costa Fusillier
- Defendant/Respondent: Lobo Carlos Manuel Rosado
- Legal Areas: Family Law — Grounds for divorce
- Statutes Referenced: Women's Charter Cap 353
- Cases Cited: [2003] SGHC 219, Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt [1994] 2 SLR 115, Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 1 All ER 587
- Judgment Length: 5 pages, 2,825 words
Summary
This case involves a divorce petition filed by Castello Ana Paula Costa Fusillier (the wife) against her husband, Lobo Carlos Manuel Rosado (the husband), on the ground of his unreasonable behavior. The husband filed a cross-petition, alleging that it was the wife's behavior that was unreasonable and that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The High Court of Singapore ultimately dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the district court's decision to grant the husband a decree nisi on his cross-petition.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Ana Paula Costa Fusillier Castello (the wife) and Carlos Manuel Rosado Lobo (the husband) were married on April 4, 1978 in Singapore. Both are Portuguese nationals but have resided continuously in Singapore, with the husband living there since October 1977 and the wife since February 1978. The wife is a housewife, while the husband is a pilot with Singapore Airlines. They have two sons, aged 20 and 18, with the older son studying in Australia since 2001 and the younger one schooling in Singapore.
On April 19, 2002, the wife filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, citing the husband's unreasonable behavior as the ground for divorce. The husband filed an answer and cross-petition, denying the wife's allegations and claiming that it was the wife's behavior that was unreasonable. He alleged that the wife had refused to have a conjugal relationship with him since 1993, failed to discharge her wifely duties, and showed no affection for him.
After the wife filed the petition, she obtained an Expedited Order and a Personal Protection Order against the husband. She also obtained a maintenance order against him on June 14, 2002. On November 14, 2002, the Family Court granted both the wife and the husband decrees nisi on their respective petitions, with the ancillary matters to be dealt with at a later stage.
The wife was unhappy with the court's decision to grant a decree nisi on the husband's cross-petition and appealed to the High Court.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. Whether the husband's behavior was such that the wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him, thereby justifying the granting of a decree nisi on the husband's cross-petition.
2. Whether the wife's behavior was such that the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with her, thereby justifying the granting of a decree nisi on the husband's cross-petition.
3. The relevance of the wife's behavior towards other family members and outsiders in determining whether the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with her.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and applied the principles set out in the case of Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt [1994] 2 SLR 115 to determine whether the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with the wife.
The court found that the main issue was the wife's refusal to have a conjugal relationship with the husband since 1993. The husband testified that he had tried hundreds of times since 1994 to have sex with the wife, but she used various excuses to turn him down. The wife did not deny this allegation, and instead gave various reasons for her refusal, including an alleged assault by the husband in 1994 and his cutting of her personal allowance.
The court found the wife's testimony to be contradictory, as she had stated that she returned to the matrimonial home for the sake of the children, but also said she was willing to try to be husband and wife again. The court concluded that the wife's behavior was such that the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with her.
The court also considered the husband's other complaints about the wife's behavior, such as her being violent, hot-tempered, extravagant, and unfriendly towards him and his friends and family. The court found that these behaviors, combined with the wife's refusal to have a conjugal relationship, amounted to unreasonable behavior that the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the district court's decision to grant the husband a decree nisi on his cross-petition. The court found that the wife's behavior, particularly her refusal to have a conjugal relationship with the husband, was such that the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with her.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
1. It provides guidance on the test to be applied in determining whether a spouse's behavior is such that the other spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with them, which is a ground for divorce under the Women's Charter.
2. The case highlights the relevance of a spouse's behavior towards other family members and outsiders in assessing whether the other spouse can reasonably be expected to live with them.
3. The case demonstrates the importance of credibility and consistency in a spouse's testimony, as the court placed significant weight on the contradictions in the wife's evidence.
4. The case underscores the court's willingness to grant a decree nisi on the basis of a spouse's unreasonable behavior, even if the other spouse has continued to live with them for an extended period.
Overall, this case provides valuable guidance for family law practitioners in Singapore on the application of the test for unreasonable behavior as a ground for divorce.
Legislation Referenced
- Women's Charter Cap 353
Cases Cited
- [2003] SGHC 219
- Wong Siew Boey v Lee Boon Fatt [1994] 2 SLR 115
- Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 1 All ER 587
Source Documents
This article analyses [2003] SGHC 219 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.