ABR v ABS
[2009] SGHC 196

Tan Lee Meng J:

1       The appellant, [ABR], appealed against the order made by District Judge Doris Lai on 7 April 2009 that the divorce proceedings instituted by him in Singapore be stayed for a period of four months from the date of the order. The purpose of the stay of four months was to enable his wife, [ABS], to take further steps in relation to the divorce proceedings instituted by her in India, failing which [ABR] is at liberty to apply for leave to proceed with the divorce proceedings in Singapore.

2       [ABR] and [ABS] were married in [C], India, on 27 February 2002 in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriages Act 1955. As [ABR], a Singapore permanent resident, was then working in Singapore, he and his wife came to Singapore soon after the marriage. [ABS] became a Singapore permanent resident in September 2002. The couple purchased a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat and their only child, a daughter named [B], was born in [C] on 1 October 2002.

3       According to [ABS], their marriage faced problems soon after the couple came to Singapore. Various accusations were hurled by [ABS] and [ABR] against each other and it serves no purpose at this juncture to consider them. What needs to be noted is that after the couple went to India in November 2005 to attend the wedding of [ABS]’s brother, [ABS] remained in India with her daughter, [B].

4       In March 2006, [ABR] commenced proceedings in India for the restoration of conjugal rights under the Indian Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

5       One month later, in April 2006, [ABS] commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore (D 1954/2006/F). At that time, [ABR], who was of the view that India was the more appropriate forum for resolving his matrimonial problems, filed an application for a stay of the divorce proceedings in Singapore on the ground that he had a pending application before the [C] court for the restoration of conjugal rights. However, his application for a stay of the Singapore proceedings was dismissed with costs by the District Court on 17 August 2006.

6       After succeeding in fending off [ABR]’s application for a stay of the Singapore divorce proceedings, [ABS] did not proceed with her case diligently. According to her, she was in no position to proceed with her divorce proceedings in Singapore timeously as she was living with her parents in [C]. After [ABS] and her lawyer failed to appear for a pre-trial conference, her divorce proceedings in Singapore were struck out on 7 July 2007.

7       Four months later, [ABS] commenced divorce proceedings in [C], India on 12 November 2007.

8       Subsequently, on 9 April 2008 [ABR] commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore. This time round, it was [ABS] who applied to stay the Singapore proceedings on the ground that India is the more appropriate forum.

9       As for whether an action in Singapore should be stayed on the ground that there is a more appropriate forum, in Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia [1992] 2 SLR 776, Chao Hick Tin J, who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal, stated at [35] as follows:

10     It is also worth noting that in Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian [2006] 2 SLR 381, V K Rajah J noted at [20] as follows:

11     Compared to some other applications for a stay of proceedings, the present case is quite uncomplicated. Indeed, it is quite interesting that [ABR], who had wanted the divorce proceedings instituted by [ABS] in Singapore in 2006 to be stayed on the ground that India is the more appropriate forum, is now arguing that Singapore is the more appropriate forum. On the other hand, [ABS], who had taken the position in 2006 that Singapore was the more appropriate forum for her divorce proceedings is now arguing that India is a more appropriate forum than Singapore.

12     [ABS]’s counsel, Mr Ranjit Singh (“Mr Singh”), urged the court to note that by the time [ABR] had commenced divorce proceedings in Singapore on 9 April 2008, [ABS] had already commenced divorce proceedings in India on 12 November 2007, almost five months earlier. He also pointed out that although both parties are Singapore permanent residents and [ABR] is working in Singapore, they and their only child, [B], are Indian citizens. Furthermore, both [ABS] and [B] now live in India and [B] is presently being educated in India. The amount of maintenance to be awarded to [ABS] and [B] must also be considered in the context of the standard of living in India. Mr Singh submitted that this and issues relating to care and custody of [B] and access to [B] by the parent not having custody are best left to the Indian courts. He referred to Mala Shukla v Jayant Amritanand Shukla [2002] 3 SLR 295, where Woo Bih Li J stated at [55] and [56] as follows:

13     One connection with Singapore is the couple’s HDB flat, which is presently occupied by [ABR]. An Indian court can deal with the division of this matrimonial asset with no difficulty. It is worth noting that in Low Wing Hong Alvin v Kelso Sharin Leigh [2001] 1 SLR 173, Lee Seiu Kin JC rightly noted at [21] that:

14     After taking all the circumstances into account, I had no doubt that India is, without more, the more appropriate forum and that the District Judge’s order that the Singapore proceedings be stayed for merely four months to enable [ABS] to take further steps in the divorce proceedings in India is fair and should be upheld. Indeed, the period of four months expires a few days after the hearing of this appeal. I thus dismissed [ABR]’s appeal with costs.