trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nayJudgment No. 1335/2017/HNGD-ST dated September 28, 2017 on divorce dispute

PEOPLE’S COURT OF HO CHI MINH CITY

JUDGMENT NO. 1335/2017/HNGD-ST DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 ON DIVORCE DISPUTE 

On September 28, 2017, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay first instance trial court was conducted at trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay office of People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City to hear trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case No. 317/2017/TLST-HNGD dated July 19, 2017 regarding a divorce. Pursuant to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Decision to hear trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case No. 650/2017/QDST-HNGD dated August 25, 2017 and Decision to delay trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court hearing No. 5013/2017/QDST-HNGD dated September 13, 2017 between litigants below:

- Petitioner:

Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M, born in 1979 (with Request for Trial in Absentia)

Permanent residence: P Street, B ward, G district, Ho Chi Minh City. Address: N Street, M ward, G district, Ho Chi Minh City.

- Respondent:

Mr. F, born in 1974 (Absent) Nationality: France

Address: France.

trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay CASE OF MRS. PHAN THI NGOC M

Representation of Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M made in trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay lawsuit petition and written testimonies:

Mrs. M and Mr. F voluntarily got married and had a marriage certificate No. 3534, volume 13 dated November 16, 2006 issued by People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City dated November 15, 2006. Because of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay inharmony between she and her husband, conflicts persist and there is no way to solve trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay unhappy marriage. She and Mr. F have lived separately for 3 years in two different places. Up to now, they have not had spousal attachment any longer and trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay purpose of marriage is not achieved, so she filed a petition for divorce from Mr. F.

With reference to common children: She and Mr. F have no common child.

With reference to common property and liabilities: trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

Prior to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City accepted trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petition for divorce of Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M dated July 19, 2017, Mr. F submitted a Request for Trial in Absentia to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City (certified by trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Vietnamese Embassy in France on July 6, 2017), representation of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent:  He and Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M had lived together from 2006 and had marriage registration according to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay marriage certificate No. 3534, volume 13 dated November 16, 2006 issued by trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City on November 15, 2006. He confirmed that they had many conflicts and stayed in an unhappy marriage. He have lived and worked in France for 5 consecutive years and have not taken care of Mrs. M who have lived in Vietnam. Their marriage is irretrievably broken, so Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M filed a unilateral petition for divorce from him, he requests trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court to hear trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case as per trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay law.  Furthermore, he cannot arrange his work to return to Vietnam, so he requests trial in absentia in all sessions, reconciliation sessions, and court hearing. trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent did not make any request in respect of common children, property or liabilities.

People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City served trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court papers, informing dates, time and places of reconciliation session and court hearing to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent Mr. F through his authorized representative Mr. Nguyen Huu M (according to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Letter of authorization dated July 4, 2017, certified by Vietnamese Embassy in France on July 6, 2017). On trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay predetermined trial date, People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City did not receive any testimony or evidence from trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent and trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent was absent without a Request for Trial in Absentia. People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City brings trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case to trial according to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay general procedure.

JUDGEMENT OF trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay COURT

According to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case file and evidence therein and public verification of evidence at trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court hearing, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay first instance trial panel judges:

[1] In terms of court procedures:

According to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petition filed by trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay marriage certificate and representations of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay litigants, it is well-grounded to determine that this case is a divorce dispute. Mr. F-respondent has lived in France. Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 28, Clause 3 Article 35, Clause 1 Article 37 of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Civil Procedure Code, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay jurisdiction of this case falls under People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City.

Before opening trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay first instance trial, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner submitted a Request for Trial in Absentia, court papers were duly served to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent with notification of dates, time and places but trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court did not receive any reply and eventually trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent was absent. Deeming that, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner’s request and opinions are specified in her testimony; trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent's representation states his opinions about a part of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case, their absence do not prejudice trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case settlement. Pursuant to Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 227; Clause 1, Clause 3 Article 228 oftrực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Civil Procedure Code in Viet Nam, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay first instance trial panel decides to try in absence of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner and trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent.

In this case, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay litigants submitted files and evidence related to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case; trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent has lived abroad and has his authorized representative receive court papers from trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court; therefore, People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City decides not to conduct trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay judicial assistance and take extra evidence. Pursuant to Clause 2 Article 21 of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Civil Procedure Code, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay People’s Procuracy does not join trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court hearing.

[2] With reference to content:

According to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay testimony of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner, representation of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent and trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay marriage certificate No. 3534, volume 13 dated November 16, 2006 issued by People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City on November 15, 2006, it is well-grounded to determine that trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay marriage between Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M and Mr. F was established on a voluntary basis and recognized by law.

According to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay representation, their marriage was only happy for a short time. Up to now, Mr. F has lived and worked in France and Mrs. M has lived in Vietnam. They both confirmed that being distant for a long time makes conflicts arise, their feelings gradually fade. Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M petitioned for divorce from Mr. F.

Deeming that, they have not lived in a happy marriage so far and trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay purpose of marriage is not achieved. They both admit that their conflicts are irresolvable. They have lost touch with each other and have not taken care of each other or shared problems in their marriage life. Based on trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner’s request, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay first instance trial panel considers that it is well-grounded to accept Mrs. M's petition for divorce from Mr. F.

With reference to common children: Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M confirms that they have no common child.

With reference to common property and liabilities: trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

First instance civil court fee: Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M must pay a first instance civil court fee as per trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay law.

Pursuant to documents and evidence mentioned above:

HEREBY DECIDES

- Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 28, Clause 3 Article 35, Clause 1 Article 37, Article 147, Article 227, Article 228, Clause 4 Article 447, Clause 2 Article 479 oftrực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Hôn nhân và gia đình 2014 Số hiệu 52/2014/QH13;

- Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 56, Article 121 and Article 127 of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Law on Marriage and Family;

- Applytrực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Law on Fees and Charges 2015 in Viet Nam; Nghị quyết 326/2016/UBTVQH14 quy định về mứcdated December 30, 2016 of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Standing Committee of 14^thNational Assembly on amount, remission, collection and payment, management and use of court fees and charges;

- ApplyLaw on Civil Judgment Enforcement in Viet Nam.

I. Accept trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay request of petitioner – Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M:

1. With reference to conjugal relationship: Mrs. Phan Thi Ngoc M is judged to lawfully divorce Mr. F.

trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay marriage certificate No. 3534, volume 13 dated November 16, 2006 issued by trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City on November 15, 2006 is no longer valid.

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

3. With reference to common property and liabilities: trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

II. First instance civil court fee:

trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay first-instance civil court cost of VND 300,000 shall be legitimately paid by trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner; it shall be deducted from trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay first-instance court cost paid in advance according to trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court cost and fee payment receipt No. 0047209 dated July 17, 2017 issued by trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Civil Enforcement Agency of Ho Chi Minh City. She has already paid it.

III. Right to appeal:

trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay petitioner has trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay right to appeal to reconsider trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay case under appellate trial within 15 days from trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay date on which he receives trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay judgment or trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay judgment is posted; trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay respondent who has lived abroad and absent from trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay court hearing may rightfully appeal trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay judgment within 1 month from trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay day on which this judgment is duly served or publicly notified as per law provisions.

In case trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay judgment or court decision is enforced as per regulations in Article 2 of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Law on enforcements of civil judgments, trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay 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 and 9 of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Law on enforcement of civil judgments, and trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay effective period of judgment enforcement shall comply within provisions in Article 30 of trực tiếp bóng đá việt nam hôm nay Law on enforcement of civil judgments.