IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
ACTION NO. 245 OF 1971.
Coram: Briggs, J.
Date of Judgment:
1. This is an undefended petition for divorce on the ground of adultery. The petitioner is the wife. The marriage took place on 24thJanuary, 1970. An order was made giving the petitioner leave to file a petition within three years from the date of the marriageon July 7, 1971.
2. I granted a decree nisi on October 30, 1971 when I said I would give my reasons later in writing. This I now do.
3. There was ample proof of the adultery of the husband and it is unnecessary to set out the facts.
4. At the hearing the petitioner was allowed to amend her petition so as to allege that she had a substantial connexion with Hong Kongat the date of the filing of her petition. She was therefore relying on Section 3(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance.
5. The petitioner came to Hong Kong in August 1969. She has been living here ever since and intends to make Hong Kong her home. Shehas in fact been “ordinarily resident” in Hong Kong and has only left the territory for England on one occasion soon after the breakup of the marriage.
6. She was married in Hong Kong on 24, January, 1970 and the matrimonial home was in Hong Kong.
7. She possesses no property in England or elsewhere. At present she shares a flat with another young woman. It is an unfurnished flatbut she and her friend have furnished it and fitted it out.
8. She asked for the discretion of the court in her favour. If a decree is made absolute she and the man named in the discretion statementintend to marry. He is a man closely connected with Hong Kong and is in business here. The petitioner intends to remain in Hong Kongpermanently.
9. These facts prove a substantial connexion with Hong Kong. And I granted a decree.
Michael Asome (David Burgin & Co.) for Petitioner