In cases of the dissolution of marriage, couples will have to reach an amicable resolution on the grounds of divorce.
Unable to do this, a couple’s contested divorce hearing went before a judge recently.
Source: Leow Hou Teng
The man cited that their marriage had broken down because of his wife’s “unreasonable behaviour”, one of which was her obsessive behaviour with her pet dogs, treating them like her children.
Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported that the district judge made an interim ruling in favour of the husband, determining the marriage had broken down irretrievably.
According to court documents published on Tuesday (15 Nov), the man, whose identity was concealed, married his wife in Nov 2008.
The couple did not have children, and in 2020, the man started divorce proceedings due to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Prior to this, the pair had lived apart for at least four years. However, there was no separation, said the wife.
The husband and wife also could not reach an amicable resolution on the grounds of divorce, reported CNA.
In court, the man said the marriage broke down due to the wife’s unreasonable behaviour, which led to him no longer being able to live with her.
He raised five aspects of her behaviour, namely:
CNA reported that the couple stopped living together in Jan 2013 due to the wife’s behaviour as well as poor living conditions in the wife’s parents’ home.
The relationship grew strained, and the man moved back into his parents’ place.
Following that, the only time they had contact was when the husband helped her get food and essentials.
He claimed that he did this out of “pity”, and she treated him as her “ATM”.
Not wanting to be tied down to a “loveless union”, the man tried his best to discuss a cordial dissolution of marriage.
But he said his wife had not changed for the better, and he wanted to start his life anew.
On the other hand, the wife gave a different account, denying she behaved unreasonably or that the marriage had broken down.
Despite living apart, she said they carried on their routine and were still husband and wife.
To illustrate this, she said her husband continued to care for her and their pets, paying for her expenses and offering to buy her food without her prompting.
The man produced about 300 pages of text messages of the couple’s correspondence that dated over two years before proceedings.
In several texts after living apart, the wife demanded her husband care for their pet dogs, whom she referred to as “kids”. One such text wrote, “My kids are ill. Please help them on Sunday.”
When the husband replied that he was not free, the wife said, “You will have to make time, the kids need you”.
In another text from Aug 2019, the wife texted him, “Doggie needs his injection on Sat will arrange taxi”.
When the husband again replied that he wasn’t free to do so, the wife urged him to “be responsible”.
The husband repeatedly rejected, but the wife continued asking him to turn up, telling him not to let the dog, Benji, down.
Source: Pradamas Gifarry on Unsplash
Later that day, she texted him, “Need Pizza hut sweet potato crust Hawaiian + cold drink”, then repeatedly messaged, “Need food”.
The husband eventually relented and ordered food delivery for her.
In court, the judge found that the husband had proven the wife was overly fixated on the dogs since 2013 and made unreasonable demands of him.
She would occasionally threaten to kill herself and the dogs if her husband refused to take leave to care for the dogs or order food for her.
In another instance, she refused to leave her house as she believed the dogs needed supervision. She also did not wash her hair for three months.
The judge said the wife had also unreasonably refused to take steps to alleviate the situation.
“Her obsession with the dogs made it unbearable for the husband to continue in the marriage,” she said.
She concluded that this behaviour was sufficiently grave that the husband could not be reasonably expected to live with her.
Besides that, the wife would insist her husband pay for her expenses or harass him otherwise.
When he refused to buy food for her, she would starve herself instead of buying her own food, so he would feel guilty and end up buying it for her.
CNA reported that the woman was previously a practising lawyer but refused to return to work.
“The evidence overwhelmingly pointed to an unhappy pair . . . unable to live as husband and wife for many years,” said the judge.
She then ordered that the wife pay the husband S$8,500 in costs.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image by MS News.
Witnesses said the fire alarms didn't go off when the blaze occurred.
The father said he slapped his daughter to calm her down.
He also begged the laundromat owner not to press legal charges against him.
The dog was found lying next to a pile of faeces when its owners got…
Shockwaves from the explosion caused windows of nearby buildings to shatter.
The issue was resolved amicably.