AHJ v AHK

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 10 May 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGHC 148
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No DT 2839 of 2007
• Published date: 14 May 2010
• Year: 2010
• Hearing Date: 10 March 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: Foo Siew Fong and Adrienne Chong Yen Lin (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Defendant Counsel: Solomon Richard (Solomon Richard & Company)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Matrimonial assets
• Citation: [2010] SGHC 148

Tay Yong Kwang J: Introduction

The parties were married on 7 June 2000. Their marriage was dissolved by the Family Court some seven years later on 30 October 2007 on the ground of unreasonable behaviour on the part of both parties. As the net value of the matrimonial assets was declared to be above $1.5 million, the ancillary matters were transferred to the High Court for hearing.

I shall refer to the parties individually as “the husband” and “the wife”. The husband is 52 years old while the wife is 34 years old. The parties have one son who is four years old. The husband is a retired helicopter pilot, formerly serving in the Republic of Singapore Air Force (“RSAF”). The wife is a Major in the Ministry of Defence (“MINDEF”) at Bukit Gombak.

The marriage was apparently not a happy one and the unhappiness unfortunately spilled over to the divorce proceedings, resulting in highly contentious litigation. The ancillary matters placed before me for determination were: (a) custody, care and control of the son; (b) maintenance for the wife; (c) maintenance for the son; (d) division of the matrimonial home and other assets. Five affidavits were filed by each of the parties relating to the above issues.

Custody, care and control of the son

On 16 July 2008, Tan Lee Meng J made an interim order on appeal from the Family Court whereby the husband would have interim care and control of the son from 10am on Fridays to 8pm on Sundays each week while the wife would have care and control at all other times. The husband was directed to pick up the son at the wife’s mother’s residence and return him to the same place. This arrangement continued until the hearing before me.

Before me, the husband asked that joint custody be ordered, with care and control given to him and reasonable access given to the wife. This was because he is now retired while his wife has to abide by regular office hours in her full time work. He is therefore able to care for the son during the day. He retired with the intention of spending time with the son in his early growing up years. He claimed that the wife was vengeful and obstructive where access was concerned since the time he served the divorce documents on her and she packed up and left with the son to live in her mother’s home. He had to apply to court to gain access and even then, his wife committed contempt of court by breaching the orders. She has also refused to disclose the address of the son’s pre-school centre resulting in the husband being unable to bring the son there during his access period on Fridays.

The wife asked that she be given sole custody, care and control of the son. She initially proposed that the husband be given supervised access every Saturday from 9.30am to 12.30pm at the Family Service Centre but modified it to reasonable access. She claimed that she was left alone to fend for herself and the son while the husband was on overseas deployment for about two years when he was working. However, this was refuted by the husband who affirmed that he had not been posted overseas from the time the son was born in January 2006. The wife said that her employer, MINDEF, accords her flexible working hours so that she is able to pick up the son from the pre-school centre at about 11am and send him to her mother’s home nearby in the Jurong public housing estate. Her parents would then take care of the son while she returns to work until sometime past 6pm. She did not want the son’s education and his Sunday school in church to be disrupted by the care and control arrangements. The husband admitted that he did not rule out returning to the workforce sometime in the future. The wife submitted that when he does so, there is a high possibility that he will place the son in a different household.

Bearing in mind that the son is only four years old, it will be in his interest to have the care and influence of both parents as much as possible. Both parties love the son and both want him. The husband now lives alone in the former matrimonial home, a private apartment at 33 Jalan Rama Rama (“De Royale apartment”). The wife lives in a four-room Housing and Development Board flat with her parents. There is no indication that one or the other party is a much better parent or that one home environment is much more conducive for the son’s development than the other. The only logical solution is to let the parties have more or less equal time with the son so that he can benefit from the love of both, while ensuring that his attendance at the pre-school centre is not disrupted.

I therefore decided that there should be joint custody and that the son should be in the shared care and control of each party in the following manner. He is to be with the wife from Saturday 8pm to Wednesday 11.30am and to be with the husband from Wednesday 11.30am to Saturday 8pm. The husband is to pick up the son from the wife’s parents’ residence on Wednesday at 11.30am and to send him back there on Saturday at 8pm. The wife is to provide the name and address of the pre-school centre to the husband forthwith. Either party may bring the son overseas during the individual periods of access so long as notice is given to the other party at least seven days before any trip. The wife is presently holding the son’s passport.

In my view, this arrangement will give each party about equal time with the son both on weekdays as well as weekends. The son will also be able to continue attending Sunday school with the wife.

Maintenance for the wife

The husband submitted that the issue of maintenance for the wife had already been examined before the Family Court in MSS 53121 of 2007. That court, after a three-day trial, decided in December 2008 that the wife would receive no maintenance from the husband despite her claim for $6,500 monthly for herself and the son. At the time of the wife’s application in October 2007, she held the rank of Captain earning about $4,500 per month. Despite her claim of having resigned from her job, it transpired later that she did not and was actually promoted to Major earning more than $6,000 per month. She has since also graduated from the Singapore Institute of Management where she pursued her tertiary education, thereby increasing the prospects of further advancement in her career.

The husband used to earn about $12,000 per month as a helicopter pilot. That was reduced to $7,500 when he retired as a pilot to become an instructor. He retired from work completely since March 2007 while the wife is now in the prime years of her career. The husband did not have to maintain the wife during the subsistence of the marriage as she was capable of supporting herself financially.

The wife asserted that the husband “blatantly refuses to work, not that he is completely retired”. He also received a gratuity of some $600,000 from MINDEF. This information had to be forced out of...