AQB v AQC
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Tan Siong Thye J |
Judgment Date | 29 January 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 29 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Hearing Date | 16 July 2014 |
Docket Number | Divorce Transfer No 1866 of 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Yap Teong Liang (T L Yap Law Chambers LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Adriene Cheong and Ho Chee Jia (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) |
Subject Matter | Family Law,custody,access,maintenance,wife,child,matrimonial assets,division |
Published date | 10 February 2015 |
This case concerns a short seven year marriage between the plaintiff-husband (“the husband”) and the defendant-wife (“the wife”). This marriage is the second marriage for both of them and they have one child together (“the child”). They are contesting the access arrangements to the child, the maintenance for the wife and the child, and the division of their matrimonial assets.
The background factsThe husband is currently 54 years old and is a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. The wife is currently 48 years old. She is a partner of a sports company and also owns her own realty business. They were married on 25 September 2002. The child is presently 11 years old.
In November 2006, the parties started living apart from each other. On 19 April 2010, the husband commenced divorce proceedings against the wife on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably as shown by the fact that they had lived separately for a continuous period of three years since 2006. The wife consented to the divorce. Interim judgment was granted on 7 June 2010.
The issues The following ancillary matters arise for my consideration:
I shall deal with these issues accordingly.
AccessBoth parties are in agreement that there should be joint custody of the child, with care and control to the wife. The only disagreement pertains to the access arrangements to the child.
The parties’ submissionsThe husband seeks to obtain a specific access order from the court. His view is that the wife had previously hindered him from seeing the child and therefore he is seeking to obtain access to the child at certain specific times.
The wife submits that a general order on reasonable access without specifics will suffice as she has been cooperative in granting the husband access to the child. She insists that they are sufficiently mature and can discuss access issues in a “civil and adult manner for the sake of the child.”1
My decisionIt appears that what the parties cannot agree on is the type of access the husband should get. The wife wants a more flexible arrangement while the husband prefers a more scheduled and structured timing for access.
There are merits with respect to both proposals. On the evidence, it appears that there are instances where the parties have managed to work out access arrangements in a civil manner. For instance, on 12 September 2013, the husband wrote to the wife’s solicitors seeking the wife’s permission to have access to the child so as to bring him overseas to Bali from 25 November 2013 to 1 December 2013.2 The wife accommodated his request on the condition that the husband provided her certain details about the trip.3 There is also evidence to suggest that they managed to accommodate each other’s schedule at times.4 However, the husband provided evidence to show that there were instances where the parties were unable to agree on the access arrangements as well.5 It is understandable that the husband, whose actions suggests that he still cares for the child, would be worried.
Since there is evidence to suggest that there might be friction between the parties, I am of the view that an access arrangement which is more structured will give greater certainty to the parties while preserving the parties’ ability to continue their informal arrangements if they so wish. This will also give greater clarity on the access arrangement, which will in turn minimise misunderstandings and conflicts. In this regard, I accept most of the husband’s proposed schedule,6 which is reasonable in my view. Accordingly, the husband will have the following access to the child:
With respect to maintenance, the husband is willing to provide reasonable maintenance for the child but is unwilling to pay maintenance to the wife.7 These two issues shall thus be addressed separately.
Maintenance for the sonThe wife acknowledges that the maintenance of the child is a joint responsibility.8 She states that the child’s monthly expenses amount to $8,464.43 and requests that the husband provides maintenance of $8,000 per month for the child.9
The basis for the wife’s submissions is as follows:
The wife also submits that the maintenance order should be backdated to April 2010, the commencement date of the divorce.15 The fact that she did not apply for interim maintenance or a variation of the maintenance order should not prejudice her application. She relies on the case of
The husband, on the other hand, proposes to pay $2,000 per month for the child’s maintenance.17 His reasons are as follows:
In my view, the wife’s submissions with respect to the child are on the high side. In previous instances, extravagant requests for maintenance orders have been reduced to more reasonable figures in the light of the circumstances (see
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UEV v UEW and UEX
...to purchase a home, she was awarded a 6% share of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home. Lastly, in the case of AQB v AQC [2015] SGHC 29, the parties were married for seven years and were separated for three of those years. They had one child to the marriage. The wife’s overall s......
-
Family Law
...requirements as between interim maintenance and maintenance. Likelihood of remarriage as a factor in lump sum payments 16.90 In AQB v AQC[2015] SGHC 29, the couple were married for seven years. They had an 11-year-old son. The husband was a surgeon who earned $30,000 a month while the wife ......