Would one marry an immoral bride?
-
Woman sues real dad for child support
Woman involved with two men at same time gets pregnant
One of the men believes child is his and marries woman
Marriage collapses when hubby learns he's not child's dad
SHE was seeing two men when she became pregnant.
By Karen Wong
27 July 2008
SHE was seeing two men when she became pregnant.
One of the men, thinking the child was his, proposed to her and married her.
But when he found out the baby was not his, he annulled the marriage.
Jane (not her real name) then sued her other lover for child maintenance.
The parties involved cannot be named under the law to protect her child's identity.
The case went before the Family Court earlier this year, where the details of Jane's relationships came under the spotlight.
The defendant, John (not his real name), 28, chose not to take the stand, but his case was that he did not sleep with Jane, 29, and that the child was not his.
In her judgment published this week, District Judge Jocelyn Ong said she did not condone Jane's past behaviour in sleeping with two men during the same period.
But she found that Jane was honest and sincere in court, having observed her on the stand.
Therefore, she ordered John to pay maintenance to Jane for the baby.
The amount of maintenance is to be fixed in another court hearing.
During the two-day trial, the court was told that Jane had a boyfriend, Bob, 33, in 2001.
A few months later, she got to know John and they started having sex.
In February 2002, Jane went to Brisbane, Australia, further her studies.
She kept in touch with Bob and John through regular phone calls, text messages and e-mails.
When she returned at the end of 2003, she continued her relationships with the two men.
It is not known if they knew of eachother.
She said she was closer to John as Bob, a pilot, was often not in Singapore.
HOLIDAY WITH JOHN
Jane went with John on holiday to Sydney in May 2005.
The following month, she discovered that she was pregnant.
The baby was born about eight months later.
Bob was with her during the pregnancy test. Thinking the child was his, he immediately proposed to her.
Jane said she went ahead with the wedding as it seemed the 'only solution' for her at the time.
John had told her earlier that he was not ready for marriage.
Cross-examined in court, Jane said: 'I married (Bob) because he was the one who was with me when the doctor did atest.
'The test was positive and (Bob) immediately proposed. And at that time, probably it was out of convenience... and it seemed the easiest way out.'
MARRIED BOB FOR SECURITY
When asked if she had married Bob for financial security, she replied: 'Partly'.
When the baby girl was born in January 2006, her blood type aroused Bob's suspicions about her paternity.
The following month, he did a DNA test and found that the baby was not his. So he took steps to annul the marriage.
They went their separate ways in June 2006.
The following year, Jane, represented by lawyer Krishnan Nadarajan, went to the Family Court, seeking child maintenance from John.
She said it was not easy to be a single parent and she wasn't able to support the child.
'So all I ask is for her biological father to help me with just a few hundred dollars a month. That's all... so that my child can have a more secure future,' she said.
Besides, she added, she wants the child to know who her father is.
She submitted photos of her and John on holiday, which indicated that they had an intimate relationship.
APPEAL
John, represented by lawyer Irving Choh, argued that under the law, the child is presumed to be Bob's, as Jane had been married to him at the time of the birth.
He also argued that there was no way to rule out the possibility that Jane had more than two sex partners at thetime.
But Judge Ong dismissed his arguments and allowed Jane's claim.
John is appealing against the judgment.Most men only want the sex. When it's time to choose a bride, one would choose a prim and proper girl. A man may not choose a bride with loose morals even though his own morals are questionable. It's a pity the child ended up without a father.
-
sucha biatch.
-
My goodness. Such a mess. That why it is more prudent to not take risks of having a child until after marriage. No many how much protection, the risk is not worth it.
-
ok regarding the question... no i will not.
-
I will only marry someone with morals.
-
funny ....
did the judge ask this "john" chap to go for a DNA test too ? .... did "john's" lawyer asked for one ? .....
it's not mentioned there, only that "bob" got the DNA test and found out he's been a cockoo .... .... but wouldn't it be a "duh" kind of thing ? .... if the fellow's the biological dad, then fine .... but otherwise, for fark ? ....
-
Most men cannot accept it. Play also play responsibly lah!
-
this girl sucks. boo to her~!
-
Maybe she just enjoys sex.
-
So, Bob is the sucker...
-
Originally posted by Subaru WRX:
this girl sucks. boo to her~!
u dun like girl suck meh??? good boy -
Originally posted by caleb_chiang:
So, Bob is the sucker...
no, Bob is the licker -
So it was John now refusing to acknowledge the child or pay maintenance?
-
i would marry an immortal bride
-
biatch and bustard.
-
Originally posted by ChiBet:
i would marry an immortal bride
i wanted to say tat too.i would marry an immortal bride. like arwen, so chio.
-
seems like the judge is a fucktard.
Def is the Bitch fault 4 fucking around.
both guys look like an idiot after been deceived & the bitch is having her cake N eating it.
-
i dont see u ppl slamming the guy for trying to do a fast one by saying that he did not have sex with the girl.....
-
I wonder besides Bob and John, whether there are others.. James, Roger or a Mr Wong?
-
Could be Dave again
-
Cut the crap lah... dunno how to use a condom ah ?
Want to marry what moral bride.. when you shiok shiok don't want to use condom why nobardie complain ?
Now baby pop out already then say not his.. farking irresponsible jerk.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Cut the crap lah... dunno how to use a condom ah ?
Want to marry what moral bride.. when you shiok shiok don't want to use condom why nobardie complain ?
Now baby pop out already then say not his.. farking irresponsible jerk.
Bravo, Miss jo, my idol -
Originally posted by angel7030:
Bravo, Miss jo, my idolThe report is so stupid.. that John is the most stupid of all.
Appeal what appeal... do a DNA test will determine who is the father.
Even if that Jane is sleeping with 10 men at that time.. If it is John's sperm that impregnate her... John is still the father, cannot run away one.
Waste money appeal for fark ? Lawyer earn money only.. use the money to pay for his baby's diapers !!
-
Okamoto 003 Gold.....
-
John simply enjoyed free sex without the condom. He was stupid for not telling Jane that he will pay for any abortion if required. He can't free rides all the time.
Bob pretends to be a 'dumb' pilot who knows his woman is 'loose' and regrets marrying her when the marriage is on rocks and claims he was cuckold.