SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 MarsdenLR 38

HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ANTHONY – Appellant
Versus
ANTHONY (NEE PRAGASAM) – Respondent
[Divorce Suit No 2 Of 1958]



JUDGMENT

Sutherland J:

This was a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.Petitioner described himself as J Anthony, of 46, Bridport Avenue, Serangoon Garden Estate, Singapore 19 (at present). The petition was dated 26 January 1956.It commenced:

The petition of J Anthony residing at present at 46, Bridport Avenue, Serangoon Garden Estate, Singapore.

It stated that petitioner was formerly residing in Gemas in the Federation of Malaya and is at present in Singapore since July 1955 after his transfer on duty as a locomotive engine driver in the Malayan Railways.After the marriage petitioner lived and cohabited with respondent in the Federation of Malaya and at Singapore.Respondent on 2 August 1955 withdrew from cohabitation and left Petitioner's house at Singapore.Petitioner declared that the petition is true.

This petition was presented to the Court on 25 February 1956, and after ascertainment that there was no pending petition between the same parties in other Registries was registered on 5 March 1956.Enclosure No. 4 on the file is an affidavit by the petitioner affirmed on 26 January 1956.It significantly describes petitioner as residing at No. 46, Bridport Avenue, Serangoon Garden Estate, Singapore 19.

Respondent, in her answer, inter alia, pleaded that this Court has no jurisdiction and prayed that the petition be rejected.

No. 8 on the file is an application by petitioner's solicitor for Registrar's Certificate.This application again significantly states that petitioner resides at No. 46, Bridport Avenue, Serangoon Garden Estate, Singapore 19.

On 29 January 1957 the Court granted petitioner leave to amend his petition, which he duly did.In his amended petition he describes himself as residing temporarily at present at 46, Bridport Avenue, Serangoon Garden Estate, Singapore.He also states that his residence is in the Federation of Malaya No. 27 on the file is an affidavit by petitioner dated 4 February 1957 annexed to his amended petition.In this affidavit petitioner states that he was transferred to Singapore in July 1955.Before this transfer, he was residing at No. 76, Railway Quarters, Gemas.On 2 August 1955 respondent left Singapore.After she left petitioner was temporarily staying with his mother at No. 46, Bridport Avenue, Serangoon Garden Estate, Singapore 19. Petitioner is now given Railway Quarters, No. 14, Johore Flats, Spooner Road, Singapore 3, which belong to the Government of the Federation of Malaya.Petitioner works for eight hours and takes off about 20 hours which he spends either at 76, Railway Quarters, Gemas, or at Railway Bungalow, Kluang.He works again for eight hours and takes off about 12 hours which he spends at his present Railway Quarters, Singapore.This has been his duty arrangement ever since 26 July 1955.Petitioner was born in Taiping which he claims to be his domicile and permanent residence.The address of such residence is 105, Aulong Village, Taiping.

No. 43 on the file is an application dated 11 April 1958 by petitioner's solicitor for renewal of Registrar's Certificate.It states that petitioner's residence is at No. 46, Bridport Avenue, Serangoon Garden Estate, Singapore 19.

At the outset of the hearing on 29 May 1958, Counsel for respondent referred to O. 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1957 and raised the point of jurisdiction pleaded in the Answer.

It is necessary, at this stage, to cite s. 4 sub-section 3(b) of the Divorce Ordinance, 1952.It reads:

Nothing herein shall authorise the Court to make any decree of judicial separation or of restitution of conjugal rights except-

(a) Where both parties to the marriage reside in the Federation at the time of the commencement of proceedings.

Counsel emphasised that petitioner's address is in Singapore.Counsel cited Flowers v. Flowers [1910] ILR 22 All 203 where, at p. 205 appears this passage:

Mere casual residence in a place for a temporary purpose with no intention of remaining is not 'dwelling' and where a party has a fixed residen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top