Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 320/2530, the plaintiff brought an action seeking compensation from the defendant, alleging that the defendant had committed adultery with Mrs. Nipa, the plaintiff’s wife, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff’s reputation, honor, and dignity as a husband.The defendant argued that he did not know that Mrs. Nipa was married to the plaintiff. He further claimed that the plaintiff knew of and consented to his wife’s relationship with the defendant, and that the plaintiff had no right to bring the action because he had not first filed for divorce from his wife. The Supreme Court held that the phrase “improper relations with the wife in the nature of adultery” under Section 1523, paragraph two, of the Civil and Commercial Code includes an adulterous relationship. The law does not require a husband to file for divorce before he may claim compensation from the person involved in such a relationship with his wife. Accordingly, once it was established that the defendant had engaged in an adulterous relationship with the plaintiff’s wife, the plaintiff was entitled to bring the action. As to the defendant’s allegation that the plaintiff had consented to his wife’s adulterous relationship, the Court held that the burden of proving such consent rested with the defendant. The defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that the relationship had occurred with the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. The mere fact that the parties were co-workers or maintained social contact with one another was insufficient to establish such consent.This case therefore establishes the important principle that a spouse may claim compensation from a third party involved in an adulterous relationship without first filing for divorce. A person who alleges that the spouse knew of or consented to the relationship bears the burden of proving that allegation with clear and convincing evidence.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 6051/2540, the plaintiff claimed that she had legally married Mr. Sakon in the State of Nevada, United States of America, in 2514. She produced a marriage certificate certified by the relevant Nevada authorities and the Thai Consulate-General in California, together with a translation certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Her claim was also supported by witnesses who had knowledge of the marriage.The defendant subsequently registered a marriage with Mr. Sakon in Thailand while he was still legally married to the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore sought a judgment declaring the marriage between the defendant and Mr. Sakon void.The Supreme Court held that the marriage documents issued in the United States, together with the supporting evidence, were sufficient to establish that the plaintiff and Mr. Sakon had been legally married under Nevada law. The marriage was therefore valid under Section 1459, paragraph one, of the Civil and Commercial Code.Since the defendant registered her marriage with Mr. Sakon in Thailand while he already had a lawful spouse, the subsequent marriage violated Section 1452 concerning bigamous marriage and was therefore void under Section 1496.The Supreme Court accordingly affirmed the judgment declaring the marriage between the defendant and Mr. Sakon Wonsin void, as Mr. Sakon already had a lawful spouse at the time of the subsequent marriage. The bigamous marriage therefore had no legal effect.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 748/2568, the plaintiff and the first defendant were originally legally married and had two children together. The plaintiff later filed for divorce from the first defendant and also sought compensation from the second defendant, alleging that the second defendant had engaged in an adulterous relationship with the first defendant.During the proceedings, the plaintiff and the first defendant reached a settlement and entered into a compromise agreement concerning the divorce, parental authority, and child maintenance. However, the compensation claim against the second defendant remained to be determined.The Supreme Court held that, for a wife to claim compensation from another woman under Section 1523, paragraph two, of the Civil and Commercial Code, she must prove not only that the woman openly represented herself as having an adulterous relationship with the husband, but also that the woman knew he was already married and nevertheless intentionally infringed the wife’s marital rights.Even though the second defendant failed to file a defense, the plaintiff still bore the burden of producing evidence sufficient to prove the allegations in her claim. Since an allegation that another person has engaged in an improper relationship with one’s spouse is a serious matter, the Court emphasized that such evidence must be considered with particular care.In this case, although the evidence was sufficient to establish that the second defendant openly presented herself as having a relationship with the first defendant, an important circumstance was that the plaintiff and the first defendant lived in different provinces and had previously registered a divorce. There was therefore reason to believe that the second defendant may not have known that the first defendant had subsequently remarried the plaintiff. Accordingly, the second defendant could not be regarded as having intentionally infringed the plaintiff’s marital rights.This judgment establishes that a claim for compensation against another woman under Section 1523, paragraph two, requires more than proof of an openly adulterous relationship. The plaintiff must also prove that the woman knew the man was already married and nevertheless intentionally interfered with the wife’s marital rights. If it remains reasonably possible that the woman was unaware of the man’s marital status, she will not be liable to pay compensation.