AYL v AYM

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 23 March 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 64
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 64
• Docket Number: Divorce No 1660 of 2010/V (RAS No 168 of 2011/C)
• Hearing Date: 17 February 2012,14 February 2012,21 February 2012,12 February 2012,16 January 2012,17 January 2012,16 February 2012,14 January 2012,20 February 2012,15 January 2012,13 February 2012,08 February 2012,22 February 2012,18 February 2012,13 January 2012,12 December 2011,18 January 2012,10 February 2012,11 February 2012,19 February 2012,15 February 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Joyce Fernando (Engelin Teh Practice LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Nigel Pereira and Stephanie Tan (Rajah & Tann LLP)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,consent orders
• Published date: 30 March 2012

Choo Han Teck J:

The appellant (who was the defendant/husband) is 59 years old. His marriage to the respondent (who was the plaintiff/wife) lasted 23 years. They have three children aged 19, 11 and 8 this year. The marriage failed and they divorced. The draft consent order regarding the division of matrimonial assets was approved by the Family Court on 13 July 2010 and the final judgment was certified on 13 October 2010. Under the consent order the parties were to have joint custody of the children but the respondent “shall have sole discretion on where the children reside in Singapore or Australia”. She was to have sole discretion as to the matters concerning the children’s medical and dental needs.

The respondent and the children were to live in the matrimonial home at Jalan Lateh (“the house”) for six years and thereafter, the respondent shall have the discretion to sell the house should she move to Australia with the children. They agreed that if the house was sold for more than $2.5m the respondent would keep 70% of the proceeds and the appellant 30%. Otherwise, she would keep 80% and the appellant 20%. The house was subsequently ordered to be sold by March 2012 upon an application by the appellant to vary the consent order and that the proceeds were to be divided according to the agreed 70% – 30% (since the value of the house was above $2.5m). The variation orders were made on 16 September 2011. The consent orders were varied as follows – 1 The maintenance of the oldest child be varied from $2,670 a month to $1,000 a month pending her enrolment to a university and thereafter to revert to $2,670; 2 The school fees payable towards the oldest child’s school fees is suspended pending enrolment; 3 The appellant need not pay the monthly maintenance for the other two children if they do not continue their schooling at the United College; and 4 The matrimonial home be sold within six months and the proceeds distributed according to the terms of the consent order. The appellant appealed to this court against the orders as varied (even though he was the one who applied to vary the orders). He now wants the varied orders to be varied “such that a sum of $750,000 from the sale of the matrimonial home be retained by the respondent as her share of the lump sum maintenance”; and that “the house be sold in three months and the sale proceeds be divided equally”.

Mr Nigel Pereira submitted on behalf of the respondent that the...