AKC v AKD

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date16 July 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] SGHC 144
Plaintiff CounselBernice Loo Ming Nee and Sarah Anne Khoo (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
Docket NumberDivorce Transferred No 1727 of 2012
Date16 July 2014
Hearing Date16 April 2014,30 May 2014
Subject MatterDivision,Matrimonial assets,Family Law,Children,Maintenance
Published date17 July 2014
Citation[2014] SGHC 144
Defendant CounselMohan Singh (Legalstandard LLP)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Year2014
Choo Han Teck J:

This case concerns issues of maintenance of children and the division of matrimonial assets. The plaintiff/wife is 42 years old. The defendant/husband is 39 years. Both are Singapore Citizens. They married on 17 August 2002. On 10 April 2012, the wife filed for divorce on the ground that the husband committed adultery and that she finds it intolerable to live with him. On 28 May 2012, the interim judgment for divorce was granted by the District Court. The ancillary matters were transferred to the High Court on 7 October 2013 because the matrimonial assets exceed $1.5m.

The parties have two children: a 9 year old son, and a 6 year old daughter. The children have been living with the wife since she moved out of the matrimonial home in April 2012. The parties have agreed on matters relating to the custody of, care and control of and access to the children. The wife has not asked for her maintenance before me. In any case, for reasons that will be explained later, I did not award her maintenance for herself.

I deal first with the issue of maintenance of children. On 14 May 2013, the District Court ordered the husband to pay $2,400 per month as interim maintenance for the children. Before me, the wife argues that the husband should provide lump sum maintenance of $300,000, or $4,500 per month if there is no lump sum is provided. In my view, $300,000 lump sum maintenance for both children is not an unreasonable amount, bearing in mind that both children are still young. In the event that the husband is unable to pay lump sum maintenance, I order monthly maintenance fixed at $3,500.

I am prepared to increase the maintenance for the children because additional expenses have to be incurred for the son. The son has a learning disorder (Pervasive Development Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified). The wife says she intends to employ a “shadow teacher” who will sit in her son’s class to watch the son’s behaviour and to assess how best to teach the son to follow class work. The wife says that her son has difficulty remaining in his seat during class, and is prone to shouting in class due to the learning disorder. The son’s school recommended that the wife employ a “shadow teacher”. The cost of hiring the “shadow teacher”, says the wife, is $5,000 per month. She relies on a newspaper article as proof of the costs in hiring the “shadow teacher”.

The husband disputes these expenses for three reasons: First, he says that the wife has grossly inflated the expense for the employment of a “shadow teacher”. In this regard, he relies on an online advertisement which he claims is put by the wife. That advertisement puts the salary of the “shadow teacher” at between $1,200 and $2,000 per month. Second, he says that there is no need for the “shadow teacher” because the son is doing well in school. Third, the husband says that if there was a real need for a “shadow teacher”, the wife, who has the means, would have employed one in 2011 and would not have waited till now for one. I do not accept the husband’s submission. There is no basis to find that the wife was the one who had placed that online advertisement: First, the wife’s full name and personal contact details are not provided. The online advertisement merely asked interested persons to contact a “Mrs Lim” at an email address provided. But there was no evidence before me suggesting that the wife used that email. On the contrary, the wife appeared to be using a different email address; and Second, the advertisement appeared to be placed for assisting a “mildly autistic child”, and not one with Pervasive Development Disorder.

I also reject the husband’s contention that there is no real need for the “shadow teacher” for two reasons: First, the idea of getting a shadow teacher came from the son’s school; and Second, even if I am prepared to assume that the son is doing well in school, the fact remains that he still has a learning disorder. I am therefore prepared to accept the wife’s submission that the expenses incurred for a “shadow teacher” are necessary. Finally, I find the husband’s contention that the wife would have employed a “shadow teacher” in 2011 if there was a real need for one to be equivocal. The wife herself says that the cost of hiring a “shadow teacher” is significant, and she was not prepared to employ one without the husband’s help financially.

I am prepared to increase the maintenance for the children, but I would not increase it to $4,500. Under s 69(4) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed), the court, when ordering maintenance for a child, shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case. Section 69(4) of the Women’s Charter reads:

Court may order maintenance of wife and children 69.—…

(4) The court, when ordering maintenance for a wife or child under this section, shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters: the financial needs of the wife or child; the income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources of the wife or child; any physical or mental disability of the wife or child; the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage; the contributions made by each of the parties to the marriage to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family; the standard of living enjoyed by the wife or child before the husband or parent, as the case may be, neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for the wife or child; in the case of a child, the manner in which he was being, and in which the parties to the marriage expected him to be, educated or trained; and the conduct of each of the parties to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • TGO v TGN
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 31 August 2015
    ...and commitments. The apportionment of contributions between parents has been dealt with in several cases. The High Court in AKC v AKD [2014] 3 SLR 1374 (“AKC v AKD”) at [10] had expressed the view that there should not be a rigid rule to the effect that costs of maintenance of children shou......
  • TBC v TBD
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 May 2015
    ...should be equally borne by both parties. … The statement in BNH v BNI was brought to the attention of Choo Han Teck J in AKC v AKD [2014] 3 SLR 1374 (“AKC v AKD”) who stated at [10]: ... I am of the view that the statement should be read in context … there should not be a rigid rule to the ......
  • TMG v TMH
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 22 March 2016
    ...not be inflexible rule and ought to be tweaked depending on the facts of the case (see TBC v TBD at [27] and the case of AKC v AKD [2014] 3 SLR 1374 at [10]). I first considered the earning capacity of the parties. In this case, I assessed that the Plaintiff Wife’s earning capacity or net m......
1 books & journal articles
  • Family Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...of thesubstantiality of the award is likely to be similar. No default equal responsibility for maintaining children 16.118 In AKC v AKD[2014] 3 SLR 1374 (AKC), the couple divorcedafter being married for ten years and had a nine-year-old son and six-year-old daughter. The District Court had ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT