Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 2039/2544, the plaintiff and the defendant were legally married. After marital problems arose, they entered into a written agreement at a police station under which they agreed to divorce and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff THB 600,000 as her share of the marital property. The defendant paid THB 100,000, leaving an outstanding balance of THB 500,000.When the defendant failed to pay the remaining amount, the plaintiff filed an action seeking payment under the written agreement. The defendant argued that he had already revoked the agreement.The Supreme Court held that, although the written agreement stated that the parties had agreed to divorce, they remained legally married because the divorce had not yet been registered. The provision concerning the division of property therefore constituted a property agreement between husband and wife under Section 1469 of the Civil and Commercial Code. Under that provision, either spouse may revoke such an agreement during the marriage or within one year after the marriage has ended.Since the defendant expressed his intention to revoke the agreement in his defense and counterclaim while the marriage was still in existence, the agreement ceased to be enforceable. The Court therefore could not order the defendant to pay the remaining THB 500,000 under that agreement.However, the plaintiff remained entitled to bring a separate action for division of the spouses’ property within the applicable limitation period.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 899/2535, the plaintiff and the defendant were legally married and later registered their divorce. At the time of the divorce, they entered into a compromise agreement before the registrar under which the defendant agreed to pay child maintenance and to transfer a house and land, which constituted marital property, to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to comply with the agreement, and the plaintiff therefore brought an action seeking enforcement of its terms.The defendant argued that he had never agreed to pay child maintenance. He further contended that he later learned that the plaintiff had arranged for the child to be adopted by her new husband and, as a result, the plaintiff was no longer entitled to claim child maintenance and had no right to bring the action.The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal ordered the defendant to pay child maintenance of THB 10,000 per month and to transfer the house and land to the plaintiff in accordance with the agreement. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court held that, although the child had subsequently been legally adopted by the plaintiff’s new husband, the adoption took place only after the plaintiff had already filed the action. Furthermore, under Section 1598/28 of the Civil and Commercial Code, an adopted child does not lose the rights and duties arising from the family into which the child was born.Accordingly, the subsequent adoption did not extinguish the right to claim child maintenance that had already arisen, nor did it deprive the plaintiff of her right to bring the action.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 965/2562, the plaintiff and the defendant registered their divorce and agreed that the defendant, as the father, would pay THB 20,000 per month in child maintenance for their two children until each child reached the age of 20. The defendant also agreed to be responsible for the first child’s educational materials, tuition fees, and additional tutoring expenses.The defendant later failed to make the full payments and eventually stopped paying altogether. The plaintiff therefore brought an action seeking unpaid child maintenance and outstanding educational expenses.The defendant argued that he had lost his job, had substantial debts, and that the plaintiff was also jointly responsible for certain household debts. He therefore sought to set off those debts against the amounts claimed.The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. The Court found that the defendant had already begun defaulting on his maintenance obligations before losing his job. In addition, he had received money upon leaving his employment but had not used it to comply with the divorce agreement. As for the alleged household debts, they had not been recorded in the divorce agreement and therefore did not affect the defendant’s obligation to support the children.The Court further held that the right to claim child maintenance is a personal right belonging to the minor children. The defendant could not therefore set off against that obligation any debt he alleged was owed to him by the plaintiff.This judgment confirms that an agreement concerning child maintenance in a divorce agreement is legally binding. A parent who is required to pay child support cannot rely on personal debts or debts between former spouses as a reason to withhold payment or set off the amount due, because the right to child maintenance belongs personally to the child and constitutes an important legal obligation of the parents.