Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the defendant assaulted his wife. The medical report stated that the injuries would require two weeks of treatment if no complications arose. However, the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the victim had suffered grievous bodily harm, had become ill and injured, and was unable to carry out her normal daily activities for more than 20 days. The Court therefore relied primarily on the facts alleged in the complaint and held that the defendant was guilty under Section 297(8) of the Penal Code, which is a non-compoundable criminal offense.Although the victim filed a petition stating that she did not wish to pursue the domestic violence charge, the Court distinguished the offense under the Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act from the offense under Section 297(8) of the Penal Code, holding that they were separate offenses. Considering that the injuries were not severe, together with the fact that the victim no longer wished to pursue the case against the defendant because the victim and the defendant had subsequently registered their marriage, and that the defendant’s confession was beneficial to the proceedings, the Court amended the judgment and reduced the sentence to four months’ imprisonment.

Interesting Article
In this case, the defendant engaged in harassing conduct toward the plaintiff, who was his former wife, by posting written messages on the front of her house causing damage to the wall, shouting and creating disturbances, tying objects and throwing balloons into the house, and repeatedly ringing the doorbell until it was damaged. All of these acts were done in order to compel the minor child to come out and meet or speak with him.Although the defendant claimed that he was exercising his rights as the child's father, the Supreme Court held that such conduct was not a bona fide exercise of rights. Rather, it was coercive conduct contrary to accepted standards of conduct, contrary to morals and ethical principles, and an infringement upon the peace and tranquility of the family. It therefore constituted an act of domestic violence under Section 4, paragraph one, of the Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act B.E. 2550 (2007).This case emphasizes that domestic violence does not always take the form of physical injuries. It may also arise from violations of a person's mental well-being and the peace and tranquility within the home, both of which deserve legal protection as well.

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff filed for divorce, sought parental authority over the minor children, requested that the defendant pay child support for the minor children, and requested division of marital property. The plaintiff also filed a petition requesting that the Court issue a temporary protection order before judgment, seeking an order requiring the defendant to deposit the net profits from a business, which constituted marital property, with the Court on a monthly basis, and requesting an order prohibiting the sale or transfer of property.The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to deposit 5,000 baht per month from the operation of the business with the Court and temporarily prohibited the sale or transfer of certain plots of land together with the buildings thereon.Although the Court of First Instance subsequently rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to apply for a writ of execution within 15 days pursuant to Section 260(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.Although the plaintiff appealed the order and requested that the protection order remain in effect, the Court held that the temporary order had already lapsed automatically by operation of law. The plaintiff could therefore no longer rely upon any rights arising from that order.This case reflects the importance of continuously pursuing legal proceedings. Even where a party prevails in the case, rights that have been obtained may unfortunately be lost if the required procedural steps are not completed.