Is marriage an institution (of public morality) or a contract (of private ordering)? In Toh Seok Kheng, the High Court concluded that it was unable to declare a “sham marriage” void just because the motives behind the marriage seemed improper. In ADP, the High Court held that since a void marriage meant there was no marriage to begin with, the “wife” was not entitled to maintenance, and there could not have been any “matrimonial assets” to be divided, unless she had a strong “moral” claim. This piece considers how the aforementioned moral-contractual dichotomy emerges in these cases.
Family Law | Family, Life Course, and Society
Law, Society and Governance
Sham Marriages, Ancillary Powers, and Moral Discourse: Toh Seok Kheng v. Huang Huiqun; ADP v. ADQ. (2011). 1-10. Research Collection School Of Law.
Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1039
Copyright Owner and License
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.