AOB v AOC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 20 January 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 13
• Plaintiff Counsel: Low Chai Chong and Alvin Liong (Rodyk & Davidson LLP)
• Docket Number: Divorce (Transferred) No 2059 of 2011
• Date: 20 January 2015
• Hearing Date: 18 September 2014
• Subject Matter: Wife,Family law,Maintenance,Child,Division,Care and control,Maintenance of child,Custody,Matrimonial assets
• Year: 2015
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 13
• Defendant Counsel: Ivan Cheong Zhihui (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 20 January 2015

Choo Han Teck J:

The plaintiff/wife is a 50 year old Singapore citizen. She says that she is “presently unemployed and just started a consultancy business”. The defendant/husband is a 54 year old Singapore citizen who works as a managing director of two private limited companies. These two companies are in the information technology business, selling hardware which protects the computer system from being hacked into. I shall refer to these two companies in this judgment as Company A and Company B. The parties are in agreement that his take-home monthly income is $43,978.

The parties married on 30 March 1990. The wife filed a writ for divorce on 29 April 2011 on the basis that the husband behaved in a manner such that it is unreasonable for her to live with him under s 95(3)(b) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“WC”). The husband filed his defence on 25 May 2011. Interim judgment for divorce was granted by the District Court on 10 October 2011. The length of the marriage is about 21½ years.

There are two children in this marriage: (1) a 19 year old son who is currently serving national service; and (2) 18 year old daughter who is currently in Secondary 3. The wife moved out of the matrimonial home. The parties do not agree on when she moved out. The husband says she moved out on 19 February 2011 without his knowledge while he was away on a business trip. The wife says she moved out in August 2010.

I start with the first issue before me, namely the issue of care, control and access of the two children. The parties are in agreement that they should have joint custody over their children. But they differ on control and access. The wife in [96] of her first affidavit dated 1 December 2011 says that she wants joint care and control of the children as she is “looking after both the children”. She says that she continued to do grocery shopping, ferry the children for their classes, cook for them, take them to their medical appointments and pays for their tuition classes as she lives less than 15 minutes from the matrimonial home. The wife avers that the husband “hardly spends time with the children”.

The husband disagrees and wants sole care and control of the children with reasonable access to the wife. In [10] of their written submissions, the husband’s lawyers argue that joint care and control is not in the children’s best interests as “interactions between the parties are rather acrimonious and that such a living arrangement would be disruptive to the existing familial living arrangements that the children are already accustomed to”. In this regard, the husband relies on the following facts to substantiate why he should have care and control over the children: First, the wife “unilaterally chose to abandon the family and left the matrimonial home”; Second, the children have always been and continue to reside in the matrimonial home with his mother and brother. The husband says that the children have been living in that matrimonial home since it was purchased in 1999, and have been living in it for most of their lives; Third, the wife has to travel frequently for work. The husband says that the wife has since started her own businesses and opened multiple companies in her name from September 2013; Fourth, the wife was not the primary caregiver for the children who is looked after by his mother with the assistance of two maids during the day (presumably while he is at work). The husband says that he had to employ two maids instead of one because his mother suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and needs extra help; Fifth, the children have been hurt by his wife’s decision to abandon the marriage and the family. The husband states in [40]-[41] of his 2nd affidavit dated 20 March 2013 that he has had to attend to the children’s emotional needs and settle everything down after the wife left so abruptly; Sixth, the children are currently 19 and 18 years old and are able to express their independent opinions; and Seventh, the husband says he has been the sole caregiver and looking after the children’s needs since the wife left the matrimonial home.

With regard to (d), I doubt that the husband’s mother is able to care for the children if she suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and needs help herself.

In my view, joint care and control is neither appropriate nor in the children’s best interests in this case. Shared care and control would be extremely disruptive to the children as they have been living in the matrimonial home since 1999. The husband will continue to care and control over the children. More importantly, the children here are almost of adult age.

I also refrain from making an order for access in favour of the wife as I am of the view that it is pointless to. The children are already grown up and should be able to choose independently whether and when they would like to meet their mother. Furthermore, the son is in national service. Making an order for access may result in a conflict with his national service duties.

I now deal with the children’s maintenance. In this case, the husband is seeking maintenance for the children from the wife (and not the other way round as is often the case). The husband asserts that the children’s monthly expenses amount to $9,287.74 and says that the amount should be increased $200 every month “due to their increased expenses as the children grow up”. The husband goes on to say that these expenses exclude the children’s current school fees which are debited directly via GIRO from the wife’s bank account. The wife’s lawyers made no submissions on the amount of maintenance she should provide for the children. The family may, however, benefit from counselling with the view of re-establishing the strained relationship between mother and children.

The $9,287.74 is the sum of two parts. First, the children’s monthly personal expenses “excluding their share of the household expenses and the maid’s expenses as of 28 November 2011” which he says amount to $5,610.66 (the husband says that the daughter’s monthly maintenance is $3,630.83, whereas that for the son is $1.979.83). The second part is “the children’s share of the increased household expenses”. The husband says that this amounts to $3,373.08. The husband arrives at the figure of $3,373.08 by taking two-sevenths of the total household expense (which the husband says amounts to $11,805.80). The $11,805.80 is the sum of $11,005.80, which are the expenses for two cars and $800. It is not at all clear from the husband’s submissions what expense this $800 is for. There are a total of seven members in living in the matrimonial home: (1) the husband’s mother; (2) the husband’s brother; (3) the two children; (4) two maids; and (5) the husband himself.

The husband also asserts that the wife’s contribution to the children’s expenses has been minimal and that she has a “joint obligation” to contribute to the children’s expenses. In this regard, the husband’s lawyers make these four points: First, the wife does not pay for any of the children’s enrichment and tuition expenses; Second, the wife has not contributed to the children’s expenses (save for their school fees) since February 2011; Third, the husband has always been paying for the family expenses and for most of the children’s expenses throughout the marriage; and Fourth, the wife is a “capable businesswoman who has set up a number of companies, at least one of which is based overseas and is well able to continue to contribute to the children’s expenses”

The husband’s lawyers submit that it would be “equitable” for the husband to bear 60% of the children’s expenses and for the wife to bear the remaining 40%. This means that the wife should pay a monthly sum of $3,700 for the children’s expenses (this is 40% of the $9,287.74). The husband’s lawyers propose that the children’s school fees should be born equally by the parties, and that the maintenance should be backdated to 10 October 2011, the date of the interim judgment.

Sections 68 and 69(2) of the WC provide that parents have to maintain their children. Section 68 of the WC reads:

Duty of parents to maintain children 68. Except where an agreement or order of court otherwise provides, it shall be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children, whether they are in his or her custody or the custody of any other person, and whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, either by providing them with such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable having regard to his or her means and station in life or by paying the cost thereof.

Section 69(2) of the WC reads:

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

(2) The court may, on due proof that a parent has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for his child who is unable to maintain himself, order that parent to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for the maintenance of that child.

Section 69(4) of the WC goes on to provide a list of non-exhaustive considerations that a court should take into account when ordering maintenance.

I find it hard to believe that the children’s expenses amount to $9,287.74 monthly. I am of the view that the children’s expenses have been inflated by the husband for the following reasons: First, a large part of the household expenses of $11,805.80 is used for the loan instalments and the upkeep of two cars (a Honda CRV and an Aston Martin). The monthly expenses for both cars alone amount to $11,005.80. I find that it is not right to attribute the cost of the upkeep of two cars as part of the monthly expenses for the children. In particular, the Aston Martin, being a luxury car, is the more expensive car to upkeep as its insurance, road tax, maintenance and monthly loan instalments are more expensive. To illustrate, a monthly loan instalment of $7,275 is payable for...