PEOPLE'S COURT OF HAI DUONG PROVINCE
JUDGMENT NO. 35/2017/HNGD-ST DATED DECEMBER 15, 2017 ON DISPUTE OVER DIVORCE AND COMMON CHILDREN
On December 15, 2017, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first-instance trial court was conducted at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp office of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People's Court of Hai Duong province to hear bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case No. 87/2017/TLST-HNGD dated July 4, 2017 on “Dispute over divorce and common children”. Pursuant to Decision to hear bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case No. 45/2017/QDXXST-HNGD dated July 10, 2017, Decision to delay court hearing and Notice to re-open bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court hearing between litigants below:
- Petitioner:Mrs. Nguyen Thi V, born in September 20, 1989;
Address: DX, VH, BG, HD;
Having worked in Taiwan;
- Respondent:Mr. Vu Van S, born in February 23, 1988;
Address: ĐX, VH, BG, HD;
Having worked in Singapore;
- Person with relevant rights and obligations:Mrs. Pham Thi H, born in 1962;
Address: ĐX, VH, BG, HD;
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp CASE OF MRS. NGUYEN THI V
- Representation of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition for divorce and depositions:
With reference to conjugal relationship: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner got married in 2008 and had their marriage registered at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Committee of Vinh Hong commune, Binh Giang district. After marriage, they lived at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent's family. Until 2013, due to economical disadvantage, they mutually agreed to work in Taiwan. While living in Taiwan, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp couple often had quarrels and difference in views of life. They had doubt as to love and money affairs of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent and had quarrels, both via phones and in person, and even offended each other abroad. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp couple lived apart from May 2015 to November 2016 before bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent moved to Singapore for working, then they only have maintained contact to discuss children issues. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner returned home for a while before working abroad again. On June 19, 2017, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner presented in Vietnam and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent also returned home thereafter but they did not live together. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent had never come to meet bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner. There was only time that he asked her for a family meal but she refused because she and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp son were not comfortable with that invitation. She considers that she was no longer having feeling for bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent. She filed for divorce from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent.
With reference to common children, they have a common child named Vu Van Q, born on September 10, 2009; he have lived with grandmother named Pham Thi H. If bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court accepts bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition for divorce, regarding common child, she claims sole custody of Q without requiring child maintenance from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent, she leaves bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp child support matter for his decision. Currently, both of them have worked abroad, so she authorizes her mother Mrs. H to take care of Q because he have lived with his grandmother so far.
With reference to property: They do not request bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court to settle.
- Representation of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent:
With reference to conjugal relationship: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp marriage conditions and marriage registration time declared by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner is true. He contests her petition for divorce, they are not likely to lead to a divorce, he wishes that his son still has father and mother and they will reunite. He has never beaten or insulted his wife and son. If bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner is determined to divorce, he still contests it and she has bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp right to seek a unilateral divorce. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner had presented in Vietnam before he returned home in late June, 2017. However, they did not meet with each other. He tried to meet bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner several times but failed. Up to now, their marital relationship still does not improve. He deems that he has no way to hold her but he still contests bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp divorce.
Because of busy work, he requests bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial in absentia; any documents and decisions of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court should be sent to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp address DX village, VH commune, BG district in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp name of his father named Vu Van S.
With reference to common children, they have a common child named Vu Van Q, born in September 10, 2009. If bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court accepts bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition for divorce, he respects Q’s wish. After bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition works abroad, he may changes bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp request later.
With reference to common property, they do not request bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court to settle.
- Representation of person with relevant rights and obligations:
Mrs. H’s daughter has been working in Taiwan, before leaving Vietnam, she made a Request for Trial in Absentia and a Letter of Authorization, having Mrs. H act on behalf of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner to receive all documents from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court and take care of Q. Mrs. H accepts bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp authorization. Any documents sent by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court and court session are well informed to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner, any petitioner’s opinion is also well-informed to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court.
With reference to common children, before leaving Vietnam, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner has authorized Mrs. H to take care of Q and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent has also worked in Taiwan, therefore she requests bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court to accept bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner's claim for custody of Q who has been given care from her until bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner returns to Vietnam.
At bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court hearing,
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner is absent with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Request for Trial in Absentia, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent is absent although he was summoned two times, Mrs. H is absent with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Request for Trial in Absentia.
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp representative of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Procuracy of Hai Duong province at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court hearing verifies bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp compliance with proceedings of presiding officers and procedural participants as per bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp law as follows:
- As for bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp guidelines for bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Procuracy requests bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel to accept bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition for divorce filed by Mrs. Nguyen Thi V pursuant to Articles 56, 58, 81, 82 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Law on Marriage and Family and Article 147 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015 and judge bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner to lawfully divorce bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent. With reference to common children, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp representative of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Procuracy, after considering real circumstances and laws and regulations, requests bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel to award bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp custody of Q to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and Mrs. H will take care of Q on behalf of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner until she returns to Vietnam. In addition, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court should accept bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp voluntary consent of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner not requiring bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp child maintenance from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent.
JUDGEMENT OF bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp COURT
According to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp evidence and documentation in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case file, representation of litigants and opinions of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp representative of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Procuracy of Hai Duong province. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel judges as follows:
- In terms of court procedures:Mrs. Nguyen Thi V filed a petition to People’s Court of Hai Duong province for divorce from Mr. Vu Van S who, at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp time of acceptance of case files, has been abroad. It is deemed within jurisdiction of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Court of Hai Duong province as prescribed in Article 28, Clause 3 Article 35 and Article 37 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code.
Because bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and Mrs. H submitted Request for Trial in Absentia and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent did not show up despite being duly summoned two times, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court decides to hear bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp absence of litigants.
- With reference to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp content of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case:
+ With reference to conjugal relationship:
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent got married on a voluntary basis and had their marriage registered at People’s Committee of VH commune, BG district on October 10, 2008 in accordance with laws and regulations, so it is considered legal. After marriage, they lived together at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent’s family in DX village, VH commune, BG district. They lived together happily until 2013 when they started to have doubt as to love and money affairs of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent and had quarrels, both via phones and in person, and even offended each other. Until November 2016, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent moved to Singapore to work, since then bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp couple did not take care of each other any longer.
Late June 2017, they both returned to Vietnam but their relationship remained as worse as usual. Despite any convincement, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner is still determined to divorce and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent deemed that their marital relationship is irretrievably broken after bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp conciliation process.
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel has valid grounds to consider that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp marriage between bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent falls into bad situation, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp duration of marriage cannot last longer, and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp purpose of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp marriage is not reached. Therefore, trial panel reach a consensus on accepting bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition for divorce in accordance with Article 51, 56 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Law on Marriage and Family.
+ With reference to common children:
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp couple has one common child named Vu Van Q, born on September 10, 2009 (more than 8 years of age now). Considering each party’s situation, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel deems that: Both petitioner and respondent have worked abroad, Q has been taken care of by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp grandmother Mrs. Pham Thi H. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner claims sole custody of Q and authorize Mrs. H to take care of him while she works abroad. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent respects any whom Q wishes to stay with. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court considers Q's wish to stay with his mother. Therefore, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel determines to award bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp custody of Q to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and Mrs. H is authorize to take care of him until he attains bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp age of majority and ensure his children right.
In addition, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court should accept bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp voluntary consent of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner not requiring bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp child maintenance from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent.
+ With reference to property: No common property is claimed, so bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court is not requested to settle.
+ With reference to court fee: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner must pay bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first-instance marriage and family court fee.
Pursuant to documents and evidence mentioned above:
HEREBY DECIDES:
Pursuant to Articles 51, 56, 81, 82, 83 ofLaw No. 52/2014/QH13 dated June 19, 2014, on marriage trực tiếp bóng; Article 28, Clause 3 Article 35 and Article 37, Clause 4 Article 147 ofCode No. 92/2015/QH13 dated November 25th, 2015, vtv2 trực; Nghị quyết 326/2016/UBTVQH14 quy định về mứcon court fees and charges. Hereby judges:
- With reference to conjugal relationship: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner is judged to lawfully divorce bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent.
- With reference to common children: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner is awarded custody of Vu Van Q, born in September 10, 2009 until he attains bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp age of majority (18 years of age). Because bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner has been working abroad, Mrs. Pham Thi H (authorized by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner) will take care of Q. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp voluntary consent of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner not requiring child maintenance from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent is accepted.
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent has bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp right of access; no one may prevent him from exercising such a right.
- With reference to court fee: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first-instance civil court cost of VND 300,000 shall be legitimately paid by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner; it shall be deducted from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first-instance court cost paid in advance according to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court cost and fee payment receipt No.AA/2016/0001034 dated June 30, 2017 of Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hai Duong province;
bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first-instance trial takes place publicly, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent may rightfully appeal bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp judgment within 15 days from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp day on which this judgment is served or publicly notified as per law provisions.