Better to remain plain then.

Divorce and the attractive woman

Title:	Divorce and the attractive woman
Source:	Straits Times
Author:	K. C. Vijayan

Legal News Archive

A JUDGE who asked during a divorce settlement hearing if the wife involved was attractive was not being biased, the High Court has ruled.

Dismissing a move by the woman for a judicial review of the case, Justice Choo Han Teck said that was not an irrelevant question for a judge to ask.

He said the court could take into account a woman's prospects of remarriage when deciding the financial support she should receive from her former husband, and whether it ought to be a lump sum rather than monthly payments.

Justice Choo's judgment, released yesterday, explained why he rejected the woman's application for a judicial review to set aside the court orders to settle maintenance issues between her and her former husband.

Lawyers contacted yesterday said that in deciding on maintenance for a divorced woman, the court could consider her attractiveness.

That did not mean only her looks but also other attributes, such as her character, that might affect her prospects of marrying again, said family lawyer Koh Tien Hua.

'The possibility of remarriage is one of the factors the court considers in deciding on the quantum of maintenance payments the woman should get,' he said.

Monthly maintenance payouts lapse when a woman remarries.

Family lawyer Rajan Chettiar said a woman's remarriage prospects were not a factor in the maintenance assessment, pointing to the Women's Charter and his own experience in dealing with family cases.

The Charter lists the woman's age, financial needs and status among factors to be considered when deciding on maintenance.

But the courts have the discretion to consider attractiveness as well when deciding on alimony.

In the case before Justice Choo, the woman was a 37-year-old Vietnamese Singaporean and economics graduate whose marriage to a Singapore businessman aged 53 ended after 13 years. They have a 12-year-old son.

Last year, she appeared before Justice Lai Siu Chiu in relation to a maintenance hearing and was dissatisfied among other things that the monthly maintenance for her son had been reduced from $12,000 to $600.

She was also unhappy with Justice Lai's orders in relation to the disposal of the matrimonial assets.

She claimed that Justice Lai had said that she knew her former husband from his previous divorce and that she knew a man who was her former husband's business partner.

But Justice Choo rejected the woman's claim saying he was 'unable to read any bias or prejudice into a remark by a judge that merely says that she had known a particular person from previous proceedings'.

He said that often a judge may make such comments to the parties before him or her, especially when there was no material connection to the case.

This was so that should they find out later, they would not think that the judge kept the information from them.

'Such comments are often made so that the parties can be advised whether to object to the judge hearing their case,' Justice Choo said.

He noted that there had been no objections during the hearing before Justice Lai or when the case went before the Court of Appeal.

He said the woman's allegations had not been proven and dismissed her application for judicial review with costs.

The woman was represented by lawyer M. Ravi, while lawyer Kang Kim Yang represented her former husband.