Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 218/2562, the dispute arose between two foreign nationals. The plaintiff, a Lithuanian-born woman holding Irish nationality, filed for divorce from her Irish husband and sought division of a jointly owned condominium, together with maintenance and compensation. The defendant argued that the marriage was void because, at the time he married the plaintiff, he was still legally married to another spouse under Irish law.The Supreme Court held that the case was governed by the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481. The issue of divorce had to be considered under the spouses’ national law. At the relevant time, Irish law did not yet permit divorce, meaning that the defendant’s earlier marriage had not been legally dissolved, despite the existence of a divorce judgment from the Dominican Republic.As to the conditions governing the validity of the marriage, these were to be determined by the national law of each spouse. However, because the parties were unable to prove the relevant foreign law, the Court applied Thai law instead. Thai law prohibits a person from marrying while already having a lawful spouse. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was therefore a bigamous marriage and was void. As a result, no marital property arose from that marriage.The Court further found that the plaintiff was already aware that the defendant had an existing lawful spouse. She could therefore not be regarded as a spouse acting in good faith and was not entitled to claim compensation or maintenance.However, the disputed condominium was registered in the names of both parties as co-owners. Although it was not marital property, it remained jointly owned property and was therefore to be divided equally between them.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 302/2559, the female plaintiff filed for divorce from the defendant, her husband, alleging that he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him almost every day. Whenever she refused, the defendant would call their minor child to listen while he verbally abused her, causing the plaintiff to submit to sexual intercourse in order to protect the child from being affected by the conflict.In addition, when the plaintiff suffered from uterine inflammation, the defendant was aware of her condition but continued to force her to have sexual intercourse. As a result, the plaintiff fled the marital home on several occasions. Although the defendant promised to stop such conduct, he repeatedly continued to behave in the same manner.The Supreme Court held that, although husband and wife have a duty to live together as spouses under Section 1461, paragraph one, of the Civil and Commercial Code, sexual intercourse must be based on the consent of both parties. It is not a right that one spouse may exercise by forcing the other. Coercing or compelling a spouse to engage in sexual intercourse may also constitute a criminal offense.The Court further held that the plaintiff’s submission to sexual intercourse as a result of pressure involving their child did not amount to voluntary consent. The defendant’s conduct therefore constituted serious physical and psychological mistreatment of the plaintiff and amounted to grounds for divorce under Section 1516 (3) of the Civil and Commercial Code. It also constituted conduct seriously adverse to the marital relationship under Section 1516 (6).

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 8943/2557, the plaintiff, who was the lawful wife of Mr. Nopadol, learned that her husband was having an adulterous relationship with the defendant and therefore filed for divorce. The spouses later entered into a compromise agreement and registered their divorce pursuant to a consent judgment.After the divorce, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant seeking THB 500,000 in compensation, alleging that the defendant’s adulterous relationship with her husband had caused her humiliation, damage to her reputation, and emotional suffering.The Supreme Court held that, under Section 1523, paragraph one, of the Civil and Commercial Code, the right to claim compensation from another woman arises only where the court grants a divorce on the ground of adultery or sexual relations with another person under Section 1516 (1).In this case, however, the spouses divorced pursuant to a compromise agreement rather than as a result of the court determining the adultery allegation and granting the divorce specifically on that ground. The statutory requirement for claiming compensation under Section 1523, paragraph one, was therefore not satisfied.As for Section 1523, paragraph two, which permits a spouse to claim compensation from a person who openly represents herself as having an adulterous relationship with the other spouse even without a divorce action, the Court held that the plaintiff had not pleaded the necessary facts supporting such a claim in her complaint. She therefore could not rely on that ground later in the proceedings.This case illustrates that, even where an adulterous relationship may in fact have occurred, a claim for compensation will succeed only if the proceedings and the pleaded facts satisfy the specific legal requirements prescribed by law.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 272/2561, the husband filed for divorce from his wife, alleging that she had publicly presented herself as his wife in a manner that caused him embarrassment, invaded his privacy, and damaged his professional reputation. The wife argued in response that the husband had abandoned the family without maintaining contact and had also caused her to sign loan documents for the purpose of opening a clinic without fully disclosing the relevant facts.The Court found that, after the husband left the family home, the wife attempted to locate him and the parties continued to have sexual relations. Although the husband claimed that their relationship was no longer that of husband and wife, the Court observed that such sexual relations could not have occurred without consent, particularly on the husband’s part. These circumstances therefore did not support the alleged grounds for divorce.By contrast, the wife had no income and remained responsible for supporting their two children. She was therefore entitled to maintenance of THB 20,000 per month under Section 1461, paragraph two, and Section 1598/38 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The Court also held that she was not required to pay court fees in connection with her counterclaim for maintenance.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts, dismissing the husband’s divorce claim and ordering him to pay maintenance to the wife, together with a refund of the court fees relating to the counterclaim.