Case Details
- Citation: [2005] SGHC 171
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2005-09-14
- Judges: Tay Yong Kwang J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Ng Kee Shee
- Defendant/Respondent: Fu Gaofei
- Legal Areas: Family Law — Divorce
- Statutes Referenced: Section 94 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)
- Cases Cited: [2002] SGDC 239, [2005] SGDC 153, [2005] SGHC 171
- Judgment Length: 6 pages, 3,478 words
Summary
In this case, the plaintiff husband, Ng Kee Shee, applied under Section 94 of the Women's Charter to be granted leave to file for divorce before the mandatory three-year waiting period had elapsed. The husband argued that he was suffering exceptional hardship due to his young wife's (the defendant, Fu Gaofei) refusal to return to Singapore after visiting her family in China and her apparent unwillingness to continue the marriage. The High Court, however, dismissed the husband's application, finding that the wife's behavior, while immature, did not amount to the kind of exceptional hardship contemplated by the statute.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Ng Kee Shee, is a 42-year-old electrical engineer. He married the defendant, Fu Gaofei, who is 21 years old, on 20 October 2004 through the assistance of a marriage agency. After their marriage, the wife returned to her family home in Hainan Island, China on 9 January 2005, ostensibly to celebrate Chinese New Year with her family. She left with two female friends, Lin Yuyin and Lin Qiongrui, who were also from Hainan Island.
More than two months later, the wife had not returned to Singapore. She did not make any telephone calls to her husband despite his reminders, nor did she write to him or attempt to contact him in any way. The husband's suspicion that the wife had no intention of returning was confirmed when he found that she had taken all her clothes and jewelry with her, leaving only a few inexpensive items behind.
The husband contacted Qiongrui's husband, Toh Heng Leong, and found out that Qiongrui had also not returned to Singapore. Yuyin returned to Singapore in mid-March 2005. When the husband and Toh visited Yuyin, she told them that the wife's parents had tried to persuade her to return to Singapore, but the wife had said she would rather die than obey them. Yuyin then allowed the husband to speak to the wife on the phone, during which the wife told him that their marriage was over, that she wanted a divorce, and that she would never return to him.
The husband also described various instances of the wife's "abnormal behavior" during their brief time together. He said that during their honeymoon in Thailand, the wife refused to let him hold her hand or put his arm around her, and she was unresponsive and refused to allow him to touch her face when they finally had sex on the third day after their marriage. The wife would only permit sex once a week and would sleep as far away from him as possible on their bed, placing a bolster between them. The husband also observed the wife being very affectionate with her friend Qiongrui, holding hands and caressing each other, even in the presence of their husbands.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was whether the husband had demonstrated the kind of "exceptional hardship" required under Section 94(2) of the Women's Charter to justify granting him leave to file for divorce before the mandatory three-year waiting period had elapsed.
Section 94(1) of the Women's Charter states that "No petition for divorce shall be presented to the court unless at the date of the presentation of the petition 3 years have passed since the date of the marriage." However, Section 94(2) provides an exception, allowing the court to "allow a petition to be presented before 3 years have passed on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent."
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang J, analyzed the husband's claims of exceptional hardship in light of the legal principles established in previous cases interpreting the similar provision in English law.
The court noted that it was not necessary to conclusively determine whether the allegations made by the husband were true, but rather to consider whether, if proven, they would amount to the kind of exceptional hardship contemplated by the statute. The court could take into account hardship arising from the past conduct of the other spouse, the present hardship, as well as hardship arising from having to wait for the three-year bar to elapse.
However, the court emphasized that the hardship suffered must be "something out of the ordinary, judged by the prevailing standards of acceptable behavior between spouses." The court also cited a previous Singaporean case, Wong Pee Wei v Ho Soo Hua Anna Laurene, where the district judge had refused to grant leave for divorce, noting that "some hardship was inevitable in all cases of marital breakdown and the aim of s 94 was to promote sanctity of marriage and to ensure that the parties did not rush into and out of marriage capriciously."
Applying these principles, the High Court found that the husband's claims, while showing the wife's "foolish and immature" behavior, did not amount to the kind of exceptional hardship required by the statute. The court noted that the husband "must have expected adjustment difficulties on the part of a village girl to life in the city and with a stranger," and that the wife's refusal to get into the car and her apparent suicide attempt were more indicative of "foolishness and immaturity" rather than a real attempt at self-harm.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the husband's application, finding that the wife's behavior, while immature, did not rise to the level of "exceptional hardship" required under Section 94(2) of the Women's Charter to justify granting leave to file for divorce before the mandatory three-year waiting period had elapsed.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the interpretation and application of the "exceptional hardship" exception under Section 94(2) of the Women's Charter. It establishes that the hardship must be truly "out of the ordinary" and not simply the typical difficulties and challenges that can arise in any marriage, even one that is clearly troubled.
The decision reinforces the underlying policy objective of the three-year waiting period, which is to promote the sanctity of marriage and discourage parties from rushing into and out of marriage too easily. Courts will be reluctant to grant leave for early divorce unless the circumstances are truly exceptional and the hardship suffered by the petitioner is clearly beyond the norm.
This case is a useful precedent for family law practitioners in Singapore when advising clients on the prospects of obtaining an early divorce under Section 94, as well as for judges tasked with making such determinations. It highlights the high bar that must be met to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of the three-year waiting period.
Legislation Referenced
- Section 94 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)
Cases Cited
- [2002] SGDC 239 (Wong Pee Wei v Ho Soo Hua Anna Laurene)
- [2005] SGDC 153 (Ng Kee Shee v Fu Gaofei)
- [2005] SGHC 171 (Ng Kee Shee v Fu Gaofei)
- Winter v Winter [1944] P 72
- W v W [1967] P 291
- Fay v Fay [1982] AC 835
Source Documents
This article analyses [2005] SGHC 171 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.