AXU v AXV

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Colin Tan
• Judgment Date: 01 February 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 24
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No 3994 of 2010
• Published date: 15 February 2012
• Year: 2012
• Hearing Date: 15 November 2011,22 November 2011,25 November 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms. Kasturibai Manickam (East Asia Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms. Lucy Netto (Netto & Magin LCC)
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 24

District Judge Colin Tan: Introduction

The parties were married in 1993 but, according to the Statement of Particulars, they had been separated since 2000. In 2010, the Plaintiff filed a Writ for Divorce and an Interim Judgment dissolving the marriage was granted on the basis of the parties’ separation, and the ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in Chambers.

The parties reached an agreement on the issues of custody, care and control and access in respect of their 2 children and orders on these matters were made by consent.

The parties, however, were unable to reach an agreement on the rest of the ancillary matters and, after hearing counsel for both parties, I made the following orders on the matters in dispute: The Plaintiff husband shall pay to the Defendant wife maintenance of $1 per month for the Defendant wife. The Plaintiff husband shall pay to the Defendant wife maintenance of $500 per month for each of the parties’ two children (i.e. total of $1000 per month). The Plaintiff husband is to deposit the said maintenance directly into the Defendant wife’s designated bank account. The Defendant wife is to furnish the Plaintiff husband with her bank account details within one week. In respect of the division of matrimonial assets: The parties’ matrimonial flat at xxx is to be sold on the open market and the net sale proceeds, after payment of the costs and expenses of the said sale, are to be divided between the parties in the proportion of 40% to the Defendant wife and 60% to the Plaintiff husband. Each party shall be responsible for making the requisite refund of principal and accrued interest to his or her own CPF account. The Defendant wife shall have the first option to purchase the Plaintiff’s interest in the said matrimonial flat at a price based on the open market value of the said flat. If the Defendant wife wishes to exercise the option she must do so within six months of the date of the Certificate of making Interim Judgement Final. Save as aforesaid, the parties shall each be entitled to retain the assets held in their own names. The parties shall be at liberty to apply.

According to her Notice of Appeal, the Defendant wife has appealed against my decision on the following issues: maintenance for the Defendant wife; maintenance for the parties’ children; and division of the matrimonial flat.

I now set out herein the grounds for my decision on the above issues.

Documents filed

The parties filed the following documents: Plaintiff’s 1st affidavit; Defendant’s 1st affidavit; Plaintiff’s 2nd affidavit; Defendant’s 2nd affidavit; Plaintiff’s Fact and Position Sheet; Defendant’s Fact and Position Sheet; and Plaintiff’s Written Submissions.

The Defendant’s Counsel did not file Written Submissions and argued her client’s case by making oral submissions during the hearing.

Maintenance for the Defendant wife

Section 113 of the Women’s Charter provides that the court may order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife, and section 114 of the Women’s Charter provides that the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including various matters set out in the said section.

Defendant’s position

In the Defendant’s 1st Affidavit (at paragraphs 3 and 13) she stated that her income and expenses were as follows:

(a)	gross monthly income:	$2,409.15
(b)	take-home monthly income:	$1,911.15
(c)	total monthly expenses:	$1,531.85

Despite the fact that her monthly income exceeded her monthly expenses by almost $400 each month, the Defendant wanted the Plaintiff to pay her $500 each month as maintenance.

The Defendant’s position that she expected the Plaintiff to pay her $500 each month as maintenance was consistently maintained by her throughout the proceedings as seen from her 1st affidavit (at paragraph 25), her 2nd affidavit (at paragraph 9) and her Fact and Position Sheet (at section B).

However, it appeared from the Defendant’s Notice of Appeal that her position had, after the hearing, changed from seeking maintenance of $500 per month for herself to seeking “reasonable maintenance”.

The Defendant stated, in support of her claim for $500 per month as maintenance, that she had reached the maximum of her pay scale and that it was unlikely that she would receive any further pay increments (at paragraph 25 of the Defendant’s 1st affidavit).

I noted that the Defendant had not disclosed that she was taking a university course but had listed university fees in her list of expenses. The Defendant’s counsel, on being asked about these fees during the hearing, explained that the Defendant was taking a course.

In the light of the Defendant’s forthcoming university qualification, there would be a reasonable likelihood of her getting a promotion or a higher-paying job in the foreseeable future. As such, I was of the view that reaching the top of her current pay scale was not as major an issue as she had made it out to be.

Plaintiff’s position

The Plaintiff stated (at paragraph 3 of his 1st affidavit) that his income was as follows:

(a)	gross monthly salary:	$2,200.00
(b)	net pay:	$1,760.00
(c)	additional income from driving a taxi:	$1,000.00

His position was that he was not prepared to pay the Defendant maintenance because she was gainfully employed (at section B of his Fact and Position Sheet).

I was, however, of the view that the Plaintiff’s argument lacked merit as the mere fact that a Defendant is gainfully employed is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny her maintenance.

Decision

Based on the Defendant’s own figures (net income of $1,911.15 and expenses of $1,531.85), she had a surplus of almost $400 each month.

Also, given that some of her expenses had the potential to be trimmed slightly (for example, her claim of $100 each month for clothes and shoes, her claim of $150 each month for grooming, and her claim of $100 each month for vitamins and supplements), it was entirely possible that the Defendant’s monthly surplus might well exceed $400.

If we were to add this surplus of almost $400 to the $500 in maintenance that the Defendant was demanding from the Plaintiff, she would have a surplus of almost $900 each month.

I was of the view that it would be unreasonable to order the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant $500 each month just so that the Defendant can accumulate a surplus of $900 each month.

I also noted that the expenses incurred by the parties’ 2 children amounted to $1,090 each month based on the Defendant’s own figures. As the Plaintiff had voluntarily offered to pay to the Defendant $1,000 each month as maintenance for the children, the Defendant would only have to pay $90 each month towards the children’s expenses each month.

After considering the parties’ respective financial situations in the light of the above, I was of the view that the Plaintiff ought to pay the Defendant only nominal maintenance at this point in time and I therefore ordered that the Plaintiff pay to the Defendant maintenance of $1 per month.

Maintenance for the children

Section 127(1) of the Women’s Charter provides that the court may order a parent to pay maintenance for his child.

Section 127(2) of the Women’s Charter states that the provisions of Part VIII of the Women’s Charter would apply to applications for maintenance, and section 69(4) of the Women’s Charter (under Part VIII) states that in ordering maintenance the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including various matters set out in the said section.

Defendant’s position

In the Defendant’s 1st affidavit, she listed the children’s expenses as $615 per month for the older child and $475 per month for the younger child, i.e. a total of $1,090 for both children.

In the Defendant’s 2nd affidavit, she stated (in paragraph 9) that she needed “at least $800 a month for each daughter”. During the hearing, the Defendant’s counsel stated that the amount of maintenance being sought was $800 per month.

However, based on the Defendant’s Notice of Appeal, it appeared that her position had changed after the hearing. At the hearing, her position was that she expected $800 per child but in her Notice of Appeal she stated that she was seeking $600 per child.

Plaintiff’s position

The Plaintiff’s position was that he was prepared to pay $500 per month for each child, i.e. a total of $1,000 each month.

Decision

After considering the figures put...