JUDGMENTBY: WINSLOW J

In this case, the petitioner, Mr. Wee Hock Guan, a cashier at the Ocean Park Hotel, asks for dissolution of his marriage to his wife, Madam Chia Chit Neo, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, Mr. Chiam Kim Joo, a schoolmaster.

It is well established that an allegation of this nature must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court beyond reasonable doubt and that the onus of so satisfying the Court in this case rests upon the petitioner. "The evidence must go beyond establishing suspicion and opportunity to commit adultery and must be such as to satisfy the Court that from the nature of things adultery must have been committed; where the evidence is entirely circumstantial the Court will not draw the inference of guilt unless the facts relied on are not reasonably capable of any other explanation." (See Tolstoy on the Law and Practice of Divorce, 4th Ed. at page 29). As Lord Merrivale P. said in Farnham v Farnham (1925) 133 LT 320 320 "The inference of adultery arises when there is proof of the disposition of parties to commit adultery, together with the opportunity to commit it".

The facts are as follows:--

(a) The parties were married in 1947 and have 2 children, a boy and a girl

born in 1948 and 1949 respectively. They seem to have lived a fairly

uneventful though happy life and the husband had no cause for suspicion that

his wife had any adulterous tendencies until May 1961 when the co-respondent

who had just returned to Singapore from Borneo arrived at the matrimonial

home at No. 7 Simon Close and obtained permission from the petitioners

mother-in-law, who was the chief tenant of No. 7 Simon Close to spend a few

days there until he could find other accommodation.

(b) It so happened that during the critical week commencing 2nd May 1961

until 9th May 1961, the petitioner was on vacation leave. The co-respondent

was temporarily unemployed until 8th May 1961 when he commenced teaching at

La Salle School. He therefore used to be in and around the house during the

same period. The husband, who was in the habit of "popping in" suddenly in

the afternoons and sometimes at night at unexpected times, claims that his

arrival always gave cause for alarm to his mother-in-law who alerted the wife

by shouting, "He is coming, he is coming". The husband further claims that he

found the windows closed in the afternoons and that he became gravely

suspicious. He, however, did not succeed in finding his wife in any sort of

compromising situation but he was convinced that his mother-in-law was

holding a "watching brief", so to speak for the respondent. Not only was the

husband suspicious but he was also jealous and he had taken objections in the

past to his wifes going out with even her blood-brother.

(c) The co-respondent, who taught the petitioners son at Charlton School

in 1955, became acquainted with the petitioners wife, who used to accompany

the son to school. He later met the petitioner with whom he seems to have

been on amicable terms. This acquaintanceship with the respondent ripened

into friendship on the "elder sister/younger brother" plane. The

co-respondent took an interest in the son who was one of the brightest boys

in his class and who had expressed a desire to become a Roman Catholic like

himself. As he was a young lad, at the time, the co-respondent told him to

wait until he was older and could make up his own mind. In January 1960, the

co-respondent left Singapore to take up a more lucrative appointment in

Borneo. He used to correspond with the respondent, inter alia, with

regard to the education of the son. I have no reason to believe that the

correspondence was otherwise than that of someone who regarded himself as a

younger brother to a much older sister, and I can think of no reason why the

husband should have harboured any suspicions when the correspondence was not

conducted without his knowledge or in any other clandestine way. The

co-respondent even wrote to him wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document