Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6499/2557 concerned a plaintiff from Northern Ireland and a defendant from Scotland who had married in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff filed for divorce, alleging that the defendant had sent messages containing serious insults against him and his ascendants.The Supreme Court held that, where the national laws of both spouses recognize divorce, Thai courts have jurisdiction to hear the case under the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481. However, whether a divorce may actually be granted must still be determined by considering whether the alleged conduct falls within the grounds for divorce recognized under Thai law.The Court also addressed an important issue concerning spousal maintenance. It held that the rights and duties of spouses to provide maintenance to one another arise from the marital relationship itself and continue until the marriage is legally terminated. Such rights and duties do not end merely because either spouse enters into a new marriage.The Court therefore amended the judgment and ordered the plaintiff to continue paying maintenance to the defendant until the marriage between the parties was legally terminated.This judgment confirms that, even where both spouses are foreign nationals, once divorce proceedings are brought before a Thai court, the court must determine the applicable legal principles governing the grounds for divorce. It also confirms that the duty of maintenance between spouses continues for as long as the marriage remains legally in force and cannot be treated as ending merely because either spouse remarries.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 4685/2540, the plaintiff and the defendant divorced by entering into a compromise agreement, which was subsequently incorporated into a consent judgment. Under the agreement, the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff maintenance equal to 35 percent of his monthly salary on an ongoing basis.The defendant complied with the agreement for more than 14 years before filing a petition seeking to terminate the maintenance payments, arguing that the financial circumstances of both parties had changed substantially from those existing at the time of the divorce.The Supreme Court held that an agreement requiring the payment of maintenance after divorce effectively extends the duty of support between husband and wife beyond the termination of the marriage. Such an agreement is not contrary to law and is legally enforceable. However, the law allows the court to modify that obligation where the parties’ financial position, income, or ability to support themselves has subsequently changed.After considering the facts, the Court found that the plaintiff owned several assets and was in a better financial position than at the time of the divorce. The defendant, by contrast, relied primarily on his salary, had financial responsibilities toward his new family, and was subject to certain debts. As a result, the defendant’s current financial position had become less favorable than that of the plaintiff.The Supreme Court therefore established the important principle that post-divorce maintenance, even where it is provided for in an agreement or a consent judgment, is not an immutable right that must continue indefinitely. Where the parties’ financial circumstances have materially changed, the court has the power to modify or terminate the maintenance obligation. In this case, the Court ordered that the defendant no longer be required to pay maintenance to the plaintiff.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 4959/2552, the plaintiff and the defendant remained legally married but had lived separately since 2539. The separation occurred after the defendant physically assaulted the plaintiff and began living with another woman. After retiring from government service, the defendant later stopped providing financial support to the plaintiff.The plaintiff was a homemaker with no occupation and no income of her own. She therefore brought an action seeking spousal maintenance.The Supreme Court held that Section 1461, paragraph two, and Section 1598/38 of the Civil and Commercial Code require husband and wife to support and maintain each other according to their respective circumstances and financial ability. Where a spouse who is entitled to receive support is not being adequately maintained, that spouse has the right to bring an action for maintenance even without filing for divorce.As the separation was not attributable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had no income, while the defendant continued to receive a pension and remained financially capable of providing support, the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance.The Court therefore ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff THB 3,500 per month from the date the action was filed onward.