bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếpJudgment No. 68/2017/HNGD-ST dated December 11, 2017 on divorce petition involving foreign elements

PEOPLE’S COURT OF KIEN GIANG PROVINCE

JUDGMENT NO. 68/2017/HNGD-ST DATED DECEMBER 11, 2017 ON DIVORCE PETITION INVOLVING FOREIGN ELEMENTS

On December 11, 2017, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first-instance trial court was conducted at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp office of People’s Court of Kien Giang province to hear bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case No. 35/2017/TLST-HNGD dated August 24, 2017 regarding a divorce petition involving foreign elements.

Pursuant to Decision to hear bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case No. 77/2017/QDXX-ST dated November 30, 2017 between litigants below:

- Petitioner:Mr. H, Yao-C, born in 1980

Address: T village, L commune, N district (Taiwan).

- Respondent:Mrs. Nguyen Thi T, born in: 1996

Address: Floodproof residential cluster V ward, R city, Kien Giang province.

bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp CASE OF MR. H, YAO-C

* Representation of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner:

With reference to conjugal relationship: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent knew each other and then got married. They were granted a Marriage Certificate dated April 17, 2017 by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Committee of R city, Kien Giang province. At first, they lived together happily for a short time. Then they started having quarrels, had difference of opinions over views of life, jobs and place of residence. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp marriage is irretrievably broken, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner returned to Taiwan and lost touch with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent since then. Now bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner deems that they have lacked marital harmony, have not shared bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp same voice and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp purpose of marriage has not been achieved, so he filed for divorce from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent.

With reference to common children, property and liabilities: No common child, property or liability is claimed so bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court is not requested to settle. Because bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner must return to Taiwan and be unable to attend bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court hearing, he requests trial in absentia.

* Representation of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent:

With reference to conjugal relationship: In 2017, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent knew bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner through matchmaking and then got married on a voluntary basis and had bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp marriage registered as per bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp law. One week after marriage, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner returned to Taiwan and lost touch with her since then. When they met again, they often have had quarrels, not shared bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp same views of life and not trusted each other. Deeming that they have not had spousal attachment any longer, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp purpose of marriage have not been achieved, she consents to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp divorce.

With reference to common children, property and liabilities: No common child, property or liability is claimed so bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court is not requested to settle. Because of busy work, she is unable to attend bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court hearing, so she requests trial in absentia.

JUDGEMENT OF bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp COURT

[1] In terms of court procedures: During bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition settlement process, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent both requested bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial in absentia.  As for that reason, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel reaches a consensus on application of Clause 1 Article 228 ofLaw No.24/2004/QH11 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay June 15, 2004to try bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case in absence of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp litigants.

[2] With reference to conjugal relationship: Deeming that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp marriage between bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent meets marriage conditions and is granted bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Marriage Certificate by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Committee of R city, Kien Giang province in accordance with Article 8, Article 9 ofLaw No. 52/2014/QH13 dated June 19, 2014, on marriage trực tiếp bóng đá, so it is considered legal.

[3] bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp reasons for divorce are attributed to their quarrels, conflict and difference of opinions over views of life, jobs and place of residence during a short time after marriage. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner returned to Taiwan and lost touch with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent since then. Furthermore, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent consented to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp divorce because one week after marriage, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner returned to Taiwan and lost touch with her since then. When they met again, they often have had quarrels, not shared bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp same views of life and not trusted each other, they have not had spousal attachment any longer and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp purpose of marriage has not been achieved. Deeming that, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp conjugal relationship between bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent has not met conditions prescribed in Article 19 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Law on Marriage and Family 2014 in terms of spousal attachment, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp trial panel has valid grounds to consider that their marriage falls into bad situation, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp duration of marriage cannot last longer, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp purpose of marriage is not reached. Moreover, they both mutually consents to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp divorce. Therefore, after discussion and consideration, trial panel reach a consensus on accepting bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition for divorce.

[4] With reference to common children, property and liabilities: No common child, property or liability is claimed so bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court is not requested to settle.

[5] With reference to first-instance court fee: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first-instance civil court cost of VND 300,000 shall be paid by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner; it shall be deducted from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp advance of first-instance court cost.

Pursuant to documents and evidence mentioned above:

HEREBY DECIDES:

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 28 , Clause 1 Article 37, Clause 1 Article 228, Point d Clause 1 Article 469, Article 479 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code;

Apply Clause 1 Article 56 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Law on Marriage and Family;Nghị quyết 326/2016/UBTVQH14 quy định về mứcdated December 30, 2016 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Standing Committee of National Assembly on amount, remission, collection and payment, management and use of court fees and charges.

Hereby judges:   Accept bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petition for divorce of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner.

1. With reference to conjugal relationship: bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner is judged to lawfully divorce bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp respondent.

2. With reference to common children: No common child is claimed so bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court is not requested to settle.

3. With reference to common property and liabilities: No common property or liability is claimed so bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court is not requested to settle.

4. With reference to first-instance 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 (paid by P) according to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court cost and fee payment receipt No.0005991 dated August 16, 2017 issued by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Kien Giang province.

bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp petitioner may rightfully appeal bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp judgment within 1 month from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp day on which this judgment is served or publicly notified as per law provisions.  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.

In case bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp judgment or court decision is enforced as per regulations in Article 2 ofLaw No. 26/2008/QH12 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay euro November 14, 2008, on Enforcement, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp judgment creditor and judgment debtor are lawfully allowed to reach an agreement on judgment enforcement, request judgment enforcement, be subject to voluntary execution or coercive judgment enforcement in compliance with regulations in Article 6, 7, 7a and 9 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Law on enforcement of civil judgments, and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp effective period of judgment enforcement shall comply within provisions in Article 30 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments./.