WIFE HAD SEX WITH LOVER WHILE HUSBAND WAS IN SAME FLAT
30 Jun 2010
Source: The New Paper
HE WAS often home when his wife returned with a man, took him to her room and closed the door.
Suspecting that his wife of one year-plus was committing adultery, the man secretly installed a camera inside her bedroom.
It captured her having sex with her lover.
The husband, 33, applied to divorce his wife, 29, and submitted the video footage as evidence.
In granting the divorce earlier this month, the judge found that what the wife had done was “more than just a case of adultery”.
Said District Judge Angelina Hing: “(This) is a case of exceptional depravity on the part of the wife.”
The judge had no doubt the husband had suffered exceptional hardship because his wife did not try to conceal her adulterous acts.
“To see his wife bring home a man and have him come and go as he pleased, in the husband’s words, ‘like I was totally transparent’ and to actually view the images of his wife having sex with the man is, in my view, exceptional hardship,” the judge said.
The husband, who is now unemployed, was so devastated that he was observed to be “significantly depressed”, according to a report from the Institute of Mental Health dated Feb 9 this year.
The court heard that the couple got married on July 23, 2008. But there was little marital bliss and they often quarrelled over money.
The husband claimed his wife, who has a polytechnic diploma, refused to look for a job after 2007.
Instead, she ran an Internet business from home, selling old items through an auction and shopping website. It was not clear exactly how long they knew each other before they got married.
The husband said that in early September last year, she left their home without a word and later SMSed him to say she wanted a divorce.
The wife denied this, claiming that she merely said she wanted a separation.
Less than two weeks later, on Sept 14, she returned home, but slept in a separate bedroom in their three-room flat.
The court heard that after returning to the flat, the wife started to bring a man home regularly, even when the husband was around. She would take the man into her room and close the door.
As a result, the husband became depressed and could not concentrate on his work as a driver.
He did not go to work for four days in a row and was later dismissed by his employers.
After confiding in his sister, he decided to install a camera in his wife’s bedroom.
The video footage confirmed that his wife was having sex with the man in the room.
The wife did not deny this, but insisted through her lawyer that she was not trying to provoke her husband.
She claimed that every time she brought her lover home, she thought her husband would either be out or in his own room, and so would not notice what they were up to.
She said her husband was possessive.
She stopped working as a sales assistant in 2007 because he didn’t like her to have contact with many people.
According to her, she had left their flat after a quarrel over his insisting on having sex even when she was tired and ill.
She said she moved back in because she wanted to salvage the marriage and give her husband another chance. Through her lawyer, the wife indicated that she was willing to attempt to reconcile with her husband and has since left the third party.
Criticised
But Judge Hing slammed the woman over the way she had treated her husband.
She said: “Bringing a man to the matrimonial flat where her husband was residing is a blatant disregard for his feelings and the marriage. She did not try to conceal her adulterous acts in any way.”
The wife’s explanations cut no ice with Judge Hing, who accepted the husband’s assertion that his wife’s actions were done to provoke him.
She said: “It was a modest three-room HDB flat...Is it possible that he would not notice a man walking in and around the house and spending time with his wife in the next room behind closed doors?”
Judge Hing added that although the wife claimed she was prepared to reconcile with her husband, there was no evidence of any effort for this on her part.
The husband had said through his lawyer, Mr Tan Cheng Kiong, that he was devastated and had lost all hope or desire for reconciliation.
The husband added that he was mentally tortured by his wife’s wanton behaviour and was unable to concentrate on his daily activities.
He had to see a doctor for anti-depressants.
The wife’s lawyer submitted that there was no medical evidence to suggest the husband was suffering from any psychiatric condition.
To that, Judge Hing said: “The effect of (exceptional hardship) was apparent...If he was resilient enough not to lose his mind, that surely should not be used against him.”
