Indonesian divorcee allowed to proceed with division of assets | The New Paper

Indonesian divorcee allowed to proceed with division of assets

This article is more than 12 months old

Court of Appeal gives her go-ahead to have legal battle over Seaview apartment heard here after rejecting her ex-husband's appeal

A woman who, after divorcing her abusive husband in Indonesia, approached the Singapore courts to divide their Seaview apartment, has been given the go-ahead by the Court of Appeal to start the proceedings.

The husband, who has been convicted of domestic violence charges in Jakarta but has yet to start his jail term, had challenged her move. He argued the case should not be heard in Singapore, claiming the wife had "faked" the divorce papers.

But the apex court, in a written judgment on Wednesday, found the wife had shown substantial ground for the case to proceed.

It is the first Court of Appeal decision involving provisions introduced to the Women's Charter in 2011, in which a regime is provided for a divorced spouse to get financial relief after obtaining a divorce in a foreign country.

The court held that it was not necessary for an applicant to show that Singapore is the more appropriate forum.

Neither is an applicant required to exhaust all available remedies in the foreign jurisdiction before applying to the Singapore courts.

The couple are Indonesian citizens who married in 1995 and have three children, aged 22, 18 and 10. All are Singapore permanent residents.

In 2012, the wife filed criminal charges against the husband for abusing her and their children. He was sentenced to 31/2 years' jail and fined 100 million rupiah ($9,750) in 2013.

The jail term was raised to 41/2 years on his appeal to the West Jakarta High Court in 2014.

Instead of serving his sentence, he remained in Singapore, contending that he had been convicted on "hoax" charges.


The wife was granted a divorce in 2013 by the West Jakarta District Court.

In October 2016, she applied for leave, or permission, to start proceedings in Singapore seeking division of the property she jointly owned with the husband.

Under the regime, applicants must first obtain leave from the court before they can move to the next stage for the court to hear the substantive application for financial relief.

The wife's leave application was dismissed by a district judge on the ground that she should have applied to the Indonesian courts for financial relief before doing so in Singapore.

The wife appealed to the High Court, which reversed the district judge's decision.

The husband then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In its judgment dismissing the appeal, the apex court said the wife has met the requirements to be granted leave: there was a valid foreign divorce, the Singapore courts have jurisdiction to grant relief and she has shown "substantial ground" for the application.

The court rejected the husband's claims that the divorce was "fake" and that the Singapore courts have no jurisdiction because he has been "habitually resident" in Singapore for fewer than three years.

As for what constitutes "substantial ground", the court said an applicant only needed to show that, until proven otherwise, it would be appropriate for a Singapore court to grant relief.

The court said the wife has shown this, given the fact that the property is in Singapore and the parties' connections to Singapore as permanent residents.