- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,006
- Points
- 0
Ramseth says he is divorced, and the verdict [he actually used the word verdict in a divorce matter] recorded on his decree nisi is 'Irreconcilable Differences'.
Well, I just couldn't find this description in Singapore's divorce laws:
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage to be sole ground for divorce
95. —(1) Either party to a marriage may file a writ for divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
[42/2005]
(2) The court hearing such proceedings shall, so far as it reasonably can, inquire into the facts alleged as causing or leading to the breakdown of the marriage and, if satisfied that the circumstances make it just and reasonable to do so, grant a judgment for its dissolution.
[42/2005]
(3) The court hearing any proceedings for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the plaintiff satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts:
(a) that the defendant has committed adultery and the plaintiff finds it intolerable to live with the defendant;
(b) that the defendant has behaved in such a way that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant;
(c) that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ;
(d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ and the defendant consents to a judgment being granted;
(e) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 4 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ.
So I'm thinking that 'Thick and Black Face' may be right about Ramseth. Admitting to divorce is a red herring; Ramseth for you know, could be a homosexual all this while.
Well, I just couldn't find this description in Singapore's divorce laws:
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage to be sole ground for divorce
95. —(1) Either party to a marriage may file a writ for divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
[42/2005]
(2) The court hearing such proceedings shall, so far as it reasonably can, inquire into the facts alleged as causing or leading to the breakdown of the marriage and, if satisfied that the circumstances make it just and reasonable to do so, grant a judgment for its dissolution.
[42/2005]
(3) The court hearing any proceedings for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the plaintiff satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts:
(a) that the defendant has committed adultery and the plaintiff finds it intolerable to live with the defendant;
(b) that the defendant has behaved in such a way that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant;
(c) that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ;
(d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ and the defendant consents to a judgment being granted;
(e) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 4 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ.
So I'm thinking that 'Thick and Black Face' may be right about Ramseth. Admitting to divorce is a red herring; Ramseth for you know, could be a homosexual all this while.
