C v D: Forum Non Conveniens in Divorce Petition Based on Adultery and Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

In C v D, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of forum non conveniens in a divorce petition. C, the petitioner, filed for divorce in Singapore based on D's alleged adultery and the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. D sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that India was the more appropriate forum. The court, considering the parties' connections to Singapore and India, the location of assets, and ongoing proceedings in India, allowed D's appeal and ordered a stay of the Singapore proceedings, finding India to be the more appropriate forum to resolve the divorce and related issues.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed and a stay of all proceedings in Divorce Petition No 2792 of 2000 including Summons-in-Chambers No 650813 of 2001 ordered.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court considers forum non conveniens in a divorce petition based on adultery and irretrievable breakdown, involving parties habitually resident in Singapore.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
DRespondentIndividualAppeal allowedWon
CPetitionerIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
John ThomasColin Ng & Partners
Anita ThomasColin Ng & Partners
Imran KhwajaTan Rajah & Cheah
Michelle JeganathanTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. C and D are Indian citizens married in India in 1976.
  2. The couple resided in London, India, and Hong Kong before moving to Singapore.
  3. C went to India for her mother's funeral in June 1999 and did not return to Singapore.
  4. C filed a divorce petition in Singapore based on D's alleged adultery and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
  5. D sought a stay of proceedings, arguing India was the more appropriate forum.
  6. The parties had previously entered into a settlement agreement in India regarding the divorce and related issues.
  7. D had applied for Special Leave to Petition to the Supreme Court of India.

5. Formal Citations

  1. C v D & Another, Divorce Petition No 2792 of 2000, [2002] SGHC 98

6. Timeline

DateEvent
C and D married in India under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Son A born.
Son B born.
C went to India with the two children for her mother’s funeral.
D sent an e-mail to end the marriage.
First Motion regarding the First Petition was heard by the District Judge Shri M.C. Gary.
C filed two applications to withdraw her consent to the First Petition and for an injunction to restrain D from giving effect to the terms of the settlement.
The District Judge decided that it was for C to decide whether to join in the Second Motion (Hearing) in respect of the First Petition.
D filed another Petition No. 816/2000 under Section 13-B(2) of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
The Second Petition and the application to compel C to sign the Second Petition were dismissed by the District Judge.
D filed an appeal to the High Court of Delhi.
C filed the present divorce petition in Singapore.
D filed Summons-in-Chambers 751910/2000 in Singapore to seek an order declaring that the Singapore court should not exercise jurisdiction.
The papers for D’s appeal to the High Court of Delhi were served on C.
C applied in Singapore by way of Summons-in-Chambers 650813/2001 for an order for interim maintenance for herself and the two children.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed D’s appeal.
District Judge Ms Yap Siew Yong dismissed D’s application with no order as to costs.
D filed an appeal against this decision to our High Court.
D was allowed Special Leave to Petition to the Supreme Court of India.
Judgment was delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court found that India was the more appropriate forum to decide on any divorce petition and questions arising from or in relation to the divorce or the failed marriage such as division of property, custody and maintenance.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [2001] 2 SLR 49
  2. Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the divorce petition based on the habitual residence of the parties in Singapore.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Divorce
  2. Division of Matrimonial Assets
  3. Custody of Children
  4. Maintenance

9. Cause of Actions

  • Adultery
  • Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
PT Hutan Domas Raya v Yue Xiu Enterprises (Holdings) LimitedCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR 49SingaporeCited for the principles of an application for a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Low Wing Hong Alvin v Kelso Sharon LeighHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR 173SingaporeCited for the principle that it is more important that the same court consider and decide divorce and ancillary matters such as custody and access.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955)India
Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955)India
Section 13-B(2) of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955India
Section 93(1) and (2) of our Women’s Charter (Cap 353)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Habitual Residence
  • Lis Alibi Pendens
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Divorce Petition
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Custody
  • Maintenance

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Singapore
  • India
  • Jurisdiction
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Custody
  • Maintenance

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Divorce95
Family Law90
Jurisdiction80
Child Custody70
Child Support70
Maintenance (Wife)60
Maintenance (Child)60
Contract Law30
Undue Influence25
Duress25

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Jurisdiction
  • Conflict of Laws