Ta Tran Thi Thanh v Ta Van Hung And Another

Court:Family Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FCMC1412/1981
Judgment Date:07 Oct 1981
FCMC001412/1981 TA TRAN THI THANH v. TA VAN HUNG AND ANOTHER

FCMC001412/1981

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

DIVORCE JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 1412 OF 1981

-----------------

BETWEEN TA TRAN THE THANH Petitioner
and
TA VAN HUNG 1st Respondent
and
TRAN THI THINH 2nd Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Judge Wane in Court.

Date of Judgment: 7th October, 1981.

-----------------

RULING

-----------------

1. This is a petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery between the husband Respondent and the 2nd Respondent. The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the petition.

2. All parties are Vietnamese refugees who arrived in Hong Kong on 15th October 1980. They have lived in a transit camp in Hong Kong ever since. The Petitioner and 1st Respondent were married in Vietnam on 18th December 1969 and have three children aged from 10 to 2 years. The Petitioner alleges that from February 1979 up to the date of the petition, the 14th July 1981, the Respondent has been committing adultery with the 2nd Respondent in Vietnam and presumably in Hong Kong.

3. Since his arrival in Hong Kong the Respondent has applied to the American Consulate General here for visas enabling him and the 2nd Respondent to to enter the United States of America. He was refused. The Petitioner then applied for similar visas for herself and the three children. She has been informed that her application will not be considered unless and until she obtains a diverce. The rationale of this apparently arbitrary decision would appear to be that the American policy is to admit only a complete family, not part of it, and as the husband has already been rejected the remaining family members are not acceptable.

4. The Petitioner's purpose in obtaining a divorce is clearly to open the way to an American visa. It is by no means certain however that she will in the end be granted a visa even after a divorce. In the meantime she must remain in Hong Kong.

5. The question is whether in these circumstances either of the parties to the marriage had "a substantial connexion with Hong Kong at the date of the petition" See 3(c) of the Matrimonial Clauses Ordinance, Cap. 179.

6. Counsel referred me to the case of Savournin v. LAU Yat-fung (1971) HKLR 180. There is also the case of Griggs v. Griggs (1971) HKLR 299. Both were decisions of...

To continue reading

Request your trial