The Constitutional Court has unanimously declared that the law permitting spouses to claim damages for adultery is against the Constitution. The decision involves Section 1523, paragraph two, of the Civil and Commercial Code. This provision lets a husband seek compensation from a man engaging with his wife, whereas a wife can sue a woman openly having an affair with her husband.

 

The Ombudsman submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court, stating that the terminology of this clause is problematic. It was observed that the language allowed a husband to sue the "adulterer" of any gender, regardless of whether the wife was a willing participant or the affair was open. Conversely, only a wife could sue another woman if the affair was open. This was considered biased and contrary to Section 27 of the Constitution, which ensures equal rights for both genders and forbids discrimination based on gender.

 

According to Decha Kittiwittayanan, a well-known lawyer, as per the court's verdict, for the next 360 days, legally married women won't be able to sue any woman involved with their husband. Likewise, legally married men won't be able to claim compensation from a man involved with their wife. The court highlighted that everyone has equal rights and freedoms and the law should be enforced uniformly. Nonetheless, divorce cases remain unaffected as they are governed by other legal rules.

 

The court's decision won't affect cases where a judgment has already been given. However, ongoing adultery lawsuits that are still under review will be dismissed after the 360-day period.

 

File photo for reference only

 

-- 2024-06-19

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

38 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

This provision lets a husband seek compensation from a man engaging with his wife, whereas a wife can sue a woman openly having an affair with her husband.

Same sex couples need to identify, who is husband and who is wife.

 

 

These things are sometimes sorted out the Thai way. Shoot someone.

It appears that it's who's up who and who's paying the rent.

No topic for the constitution I think...Constitution should have only the basic right for Crown, country, people and religion... all the rest should be arranged in normal laws..

1 minute ago, ikke1959 said:

No topic for the constitution I think...Constitution should have only the basic right for Crown, country, people and religion... all the rest should be arranged in normal laws..

Yes, but a constitution should also cover all, as that one is that root of the system, when the rules and laws are not clear enough or are up for bending and redesign. All the normal laws, must be built to be constitutional, which they of course have found this one not to be. Surely, it isn´t as well, as there can no be any support for the claims in the constitution. It´s just silly claims. What it all goes down to, is that married people must take responsibility. If one sleep around, there is no possibility to ask for compensation from the bedroom guest. That would automatically change man and wife situation to pimp and prostitute. The reality is, that it´s just to accept and move on, or repair as some think is possible.

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

According to Decha Kittiwittayanan, a well-known lawyer, as per the court's verdict, for the next 360 days, legally married women won't be able to sue any woman involved with their husband. Likewise, legally married men won't be able to claim compensation from a man involved with their wife.

Woohoo guys. Now is your chance to play around with some of those sexy married women or young girls without fear they will have to pay your wife restitution or be sued in the courts. Open season for affairs for the next year. Have fun and do not worry if you get caught haha...

5 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

Woohoo guys. Now is your chance to play around with some of those sexy married women or young girls without fear they will have to pay your wife restitution or be sued in the courts. Open season for affairs for the next year. Have fun and do not worry if you get caught haha...

Until you get a knock on the door from an angry partner.

14 hours ago, mason 45 said:

It appears that it's who's up who and who's paying the rent.

Note to self:  Buy a Welcome mat for the back door.

Yes, I agree that the law must be written so as not to discriminate between married couples. 

Also, my preference would be there would be no law against adultery but that adultery could be used as a reason to file for divorce and may be treated as a "breach of contract." 

52 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, I agree that the law must be written so as not to discriminate between married couples. 

Also, my preference would be there would be no law against adultery but that adultery could be used as a reason to file for divorce and may be treated as a "breach of contract." 

Agreed, marriage does not confer ownership over ones partner, wanting compensation implies you have lost something that you owned.

we all read in the news how that turns out in many cases

 

why only shoot/stab the man that is cheating with your wife

 

in the hope she comes back, after a few years in jail , waiting for you ?

so the current law is that if a husband cheats with a woman - the wife can sue for damages and divorce

but if he cheats with a ladyboy or a man - scot free

everyone can sue anyone. easy. next. 

if they found this unconstitutional, if anyone would bother making the case, various aspect of immigration law like being married to  a Thai male vs female benefits in becoming citizens might count too

18 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Same sex couples need to identify, who is husband and who is wife.

 

 

All depends upon the time of the month......

19 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The Ombudsman submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court, stating that the terminology of this clause is problematic. It was observed that the language allowed a husband to sue the "adulterer" of any gender, regardless of whether the wife was a willing participant or the affair was open. Conversely, only a wife could sue another woman if the affair was open. This was considered biased and contrary to Section 27 of the Constitution, which ensures equal rights for both genders and forbids discrimination based on gender.

Ok - so what about the Immigration laws that allow a foreign woman married to a Thai man to have a path to citizenship but not a foreign man married to a Thai woman? 

This is gender discrimination too.

19 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

legally married men won't be able to claim compensation from a man involved with their wife.

That will help with a lot of Falang with bar girls, but what if they are not 'legally' married ? 

Phew I'm safe then, I was worried about bob suing me.................

Misogyny is still alive and well in developed and undeveloped countries I see 

How about if a woman is involved with his wife???

23 minutes ago, connda said:

Ok - so what about the Immigration laws that allow a foreign woman married to a Thai man to have a path to citizenship but not a foreign man married to a Thai woman? 

This is gender discrimination too.

Funny that. Foreign men can apply for Thai citizenship based on marriage to Thai women, provided they are employed and meet other criteria. The law changed in 2008. 

What on earth is going on with Thailand these days? First they legalise weed (although maybe for not much longer) then legalise gay marriage and now this. 

 

Could Thailand finally be getting a bit of common sense?

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

What on earth is going on with Thailand these days? First they legalise weed (although maybe for not much longer) then legalise gay marriage and now this. 

 

Could Thailand finally be getting a bit of common sense?

Nope don't be daft mate. 

41 minutes ago, connda said:

so what about the Immigration laws that allow a foreign woman married to a Thai man to have a path to citizenship but not a foreign man married to a Thai woman? 

Foreign men, married to Thai women, do have the right to apply for citizenship.

26 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

That will help with a lot of Falang with bar girls, but what if they are not 'legally' married ? 

If they're not legally married, then they're not married, obviously.

3 hours ago, brianthainess said:

Phew I'm safe then, I was worried about bob suing me.................

 

Phew - me too, I was worried about bob's wife suing me...................👨‍❤️‍👨

3 hours ago, GarryP said:

provided they are employed and meet other criteria.

Not the same criteria as a foreign woman married to a Thai guy.  The marriage alone is the criteria.

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Foreign men, married to Thai women, do have the right to apply for citizenship.

Ya'll do know what I'm talking about.  Let's not play word-games like you both have just done.  Ya'll know I'm talking about a path to citizenship based on the marriage being the only criteria.

With a foreign woman married to a Thai guy - the marriage itself IS the only criteria needed.  And if a foreign woman has a Thai guy's kid, the marriage plus the child give her an accelerated path to apply after one year.

There is nothing similar for foreign guys married to a Thai woman or a Thai woman who has had his child.  The criteria for citizenship is the same as for any other person seeking citizenship - with the exception of a foreign woman (better - with the guy's kid).  She has an accelerated path based on the marriage (child) alone.  All I want is the same path based on my marriage as a foreign woman. 

Sad to see Thailand slowly slipping down the feminists path.

If Decha is a man he should be ashamed of himself.

 

 

 

On 6/19/2024 at 3:02 PM, snoop1130 said: