Afta v Jma Also Known As Jcm

CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date29 Apr 2015
Judgement NumberFCMC1087/2014
SubjectMatrimonial Causes
FCMC1087/2014 AFTA v. JMA ALSO KNOWN AS JCM

FCMC 1087/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO 1087 OF 2014

________________________

BETWEEN
AFTA also known as AFTA Petitioner
and
JMA also known as JCM Respondent

________________________

Coram: Her Honour Judge Sharon D.Melloy in Court
Date of Hearing: 22 April 2015
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2015

________________________

JUDGMENT
(Defended Petition)
________________________

Introduction

1. This is a defended divorce. The husband seeks a decree based on two years’ separation. The wife, for her part, defends because of her religious convictions. She has not cross-petitioned, although it is common ground that the husband has formed a new relationship, and that he has a further child, a little boy, who was born on 5 February 2010.

Background

2. The parties married in March 1990, and had two daughters who are now aged 23 and 22 years old respectively. The husband, who is now 47, is a musician, and the wife, who is 58, works as an airport assistant. They are both from the Philippines originally.

3. The husband filed for divorce on 27 January 2014 on the basis of two years’ separation. He claimed in the petition that the parties had been separated since October 2010. The wife for her part filed an Answer on 5 February 2014. As I have said, she did not cross-petition. However, she says that she does not wish to divorce because, and I quote from the Answer:

“I do not wish to have a divorce due to the following reasons. I am a responsible and a faithful mother and wife to my family. I am the main provider of the family since our marriage and until present. I have not engaged in any illegal relationships, nor had any children during our marriage. The petitioner has made false claim of having no other children outside the family during our marriage, and it is not true that we are separated for two years.”

It is the last point that is relevant for present purposes.

Issue

4. There is only one issue to determine, namely, have the parties lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, and on that basis, can the parties’ marriage be said to have broken down irretrievably?

The Law

5. There is only one ground for divorce in Hong Kong, i.e. that the marriage has broken down...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT