Aje v Ajf
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kan Ting Chiu J |
Judgment Date | 09 May 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGHC 115 |
Published date | 11 May 2011 |
Date | 09 May 2011 |
Year | 2011 |
Hearing Date | 05 October 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Foo Siew Fong and Cheong Yen Lin Adriene (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) |
Citation | [2011] SGHC 115 |
Defendant Counsel | Lim Teong Jin George SC and Tan Ai Ling Jinny (Wee, Tay & Lim LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Court Appeals Nos 29 and 30 of 2010 |
These matters originated from an application by a wife (“the wife”) against her husband (“the husband”) for maintenance for herself and two children. The application was filed on its own, without any divorce proceedings.
The husband and wife were married in 1999. It was the second marriage for both of them. The husband had two sons from a previous marriage, and the wife had one son
The application was heard in the Family Court. At the end of a 4-day hearing, a District Judge (“DJ”) ordered that the husband:
Both parties appealed against the DJ’s orders. The wife appealed against:
The husband, on the other hand, appealed against:
I shall deal with both appeals together and address the issues in this order:
This issue was not brought up in the court below where the arguments were centred on the quantum of maintenance. However, in an application for maintenance, it is essential that there be a duty to maintain; if there is no duty to maintain, then the application for maintenance must fail.
The claim for maintenance for
70. —(1) Where a person has accepted a child who is not his child as a member of his family, it shall be his duty to maintain that child while he remains a child, so far as the father or the mother of the child fails to do so, and the court may make such orders as may be necessary to ensure the welfare of the child.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) shall cease if the child is taken away by his father or mother.
(3) Any sums expended by a person maintaining that child shall be recoverable as a debt from the father or mother of the child.
The husband argued that s 70 has no application to him because:
The wife’s response was that:
It is to be noted that the husband did not dispute that
On the point that
It is useful to read the phrase in the proper context. Section 70(1) provides that a person who accepts a child as a member of his family has a duty to maintain the child so far as the parents fail to maintain the child. The words “so far as” must be understood properly. They have the same meaning as “to the extent that”. In other words, the duty only starts upon the parents’ failure to maintain the child adequately. If the child is already adequately maintained by his or her parents, there is no duty on the non-parent to provide further maintenance for the child. However, if the child receives
As it was not contended or established that the $350 per month from
On the husband’s second ground that
Section 70(1) states that when a person “
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Tdt Tds and Another Appeal and Another Matter
...not require a total failure, but a failure to adequately maintain the children (see also the Singapore High Court decision of AJE v AJF [2011] 3 SLR 1177 (“AJE v AJF”) at [11]–[12]). Although the biological mother of the children had failed to obtain an order for substantive maintenance, Wo......
-
Axm v Axo
...or rescission of such orders) was literally broader, there might be no practical difference in the final analysis: at [43] .] AJE v AJF [2011] 3 SLR 1177 (refd) AMW v AMZ [2011] 3 SLR 955 (refd) ATS v ATT [2013] SGHC 156 (refd) AXM v AXO [2012] SGDC 208 (not folld) AXM v AXO [2013] 3 SLR 73......
-
VLW v VLX
...principles that can be gleaned from the cases involving backdating spousal maintenance (see eg: AMW v AMZ [2011] 3 SLR 955; AJE v AJF [2011] 3 SLR 1177; TG v TH [2007] SGDC 172) that apply to children. His Honour went on to discuss the considerations that the court should bear in mind in de......
-
AXM v AXO
...ZH [2008] SGDC 293 (“ZG v ZH”) as well as the Singapore High Court decisions of AMW v AMZ [2011] 3 SLR 955 (“AMW v AMZ”) and AJE v AJF [2011] 3 SLR 1177 (“AJE v AJF”)) in which the backdating of maintenance orders, albeit on application of the recipient wives rather than the paying husbands......
-
Family Law
...post-divorce parenting to get off to a reasonable start. Maintenance of child under section 70 of the Women's Charter 15.2 In AJE v AJF[2011] 3 SLR 1177 (AJE), the husband had two sons from his previous marriage, and the wife had one son, B, from her previous marriage. Both had one son, C, ......
-
Family Law
...at [46]. 40 Soon Ah See v Diao Yanmei [2016] 5 SLR 693 at [48]. 41 [2016] 4 SLR 145. 42 [2006] 2 SLR(R) 475. 43 [2009] 3 SLR(R) 827. 44 [2011] 3 SLR 1177. 45 TDT v TDS [2016] 4 SLR 145 at [79]–[123]. 46 TDT v TDS [2016] 4 SLR 145 at [132]. 47 TDT v TDS [2016] 4 SLR 145 at [130]–[131]. 48 TD......