Back
1972 MarsdenLR 114
AV Winslow J:
In this appeal against the judgment of the eighth Magistate dated 1 March 1971 ordering maintenance in the sum of $200 per month to be paid by the appellant to the respondent, with effect from 1 June 1970, under s. 60(1)(c) of the Women's Charter (Cap. 47, 1970 Edn.) for neglecting to provide maintenance for her as his wife, the appellant contended that although he married the respondent in India in 1966 he obtained a divorce from her in the Court of the Munsif at Tellicherry, Kerala State, on 2 January 1970.
The sole issue before the Magistate was whether she was still the wife of the appellant and whether he had neglected to maintain her and he decided that the respondent was still married to the appellant and that the divorce granted by the Court of the Munsif on 2 January 1970 could not be recognised in Singapore.
The Magistate found that the appellant was domiciled in Singapore on that date.
By virtue of the provisions of s. 80 of the Women's Charter therefore, jurisdiction with regard to the dissolution of such a marriage as this which was celebrated on 18 April 1966 in Tellicherry, Kerala State rests with the High Court of Singapore.
There is no doubt that the marriage celebrated at Tellicherry between the parties in 1966 is a valid monogamous marriage. It was celebrated under s. 4 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. By virtue of s. 6 of that Act a marriage under s. 4 may be dissolved by an order of dissolution as provided under s. 7 of that Act whereby a husband may present a petition for such dissolution if the place where the marriage was contracted is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of a District Munsif.
The divorce of 2 January 1970 was granted on this basis under s. 9 of the Marumakkattayam Act which provides that:
the Court shall, on being satisfied after such inquiry as it thinks fit that a marriage which is valid under s. 4 was contracted between the parties, by an order in writing declare the marriage dissolved.
The right conferred by this Act to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage is not affected by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 of India by virtue of s. 29(2) of that Act.
It is quite clear that if the appellant had merely been a resident here who had obtained a divorce in India on the basis of his being domiciled there, the Courts in Singapore would recognise such a divorce. That, however, is not the position in this case. The Court of the District Munsif, Tellicherry, Kerala State, did not purport to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of his being domiciled there. The Court clothed itself with jurisdiction because the place where the marriage was celebrated lay within its jurisdiction. It is a fact found by the Magistate that the appellant at the time he obtained his divorce in India was in fact domiciled in Singapore. The Court in Singapore therefore cannot recognize such a divorce.
Counsel for the appellant invoked the relaxations to the rule based on domicile enunciated by the House of Lords in England in Indyka v. Indyka [1967] 2 All ER 689 to the effect that an English Court would recognise a divorce granted on the basis of nationality by the Court of a foreign country with which the petitioner could be said to have a real and substantial connexion.
So far as I am aware, no cases have arisen to this day in Singapore where relaxations such as these to the domicile test have been followed. It should be noted that in England no statutory provision exists, such as that contained in s. 80 of the Women's Charter making domicile the test for jurisdiction in divorce, the domicile test in England being only judge-made law.
It is also clear that the mere fact that a marriage was celebrated in Tellicherry would not be sufficient to create a real and substantial connexion between the appellant and Tellicherry.
Even if it can be said that, notwithstanding the statutory requirement of domicile as the test for jurisdiction in divorce, r
