Chan Yeong Keay v Yeo Mei Ling

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: K S Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 25 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 112
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 634 of 1991
• Date: 25 April 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Fong Weng Khai (WK Fong & Co)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 112
• Defendant Counsel: Foo Yuk Lin (Tang & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Matrimonial home purchased by sole effort of wife,Matrimonial assets,Division of matrimonial home acquired during marriage,Whether husband entitled to share,ss 45(1), (2) 51 & 106(4) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Family Law,Division,Purchase of matrimonial home in joint names of husband and wife,Indirect contributions by the husband

Cur Adv Vult

The `housewife` in this case is the husband who holds a diploma in Theology. He is a pastor at large. The wife, a teacher, claims she was the sole and only provider. The question is whether the husband who chooses to work in the home and refers to the role he has played as that of having been `housewife` has made such contributions to be entitled to a share in the matrimonial assets.

The parties married on 21 December 1968. They have three children born in 1970, 1973 and 1978.

The petition was filed on 19 March 1991 and the breakdown of the marriage was based on the fact that the wife was having a relationship with another man and that the husband found it intolerable to continue to live with the wife. It was also pleaded that the household chores were left to the husband.

The husband prayed for his marriage to be dissolved and for custody of the male child and for a declaration that the matrimonial home at apartment block 135 Cashew Road #08-113, Singapore 2367 (`the Cashew Road flat`) be sold and the net proceeds be distributed equally between the parties, or alternatively, the wife be ordered to pay the husband the value of his half share of the matrimonial home assessed at current market value and for the husband to transfer his half-share interest in the matrimonial home to the wife upon payment of his half share.

The husband pleaded that there was a verbal agreement providing for the husband to have custody of the male child born in 1970 with reasonable access to the wife, and the wife to have the custody of the two female children born in 1973 and 1978.

An answer was filed. The wife denied any relationship with another man and said that the late nights were kept when she taught at night classes or attended functions such as wedding dinners.

It is not disputed that the husband did the household chores such as marketing and preparation of meals but the wife claimed that the other household chores were done by her.

There was a cross-petition on the ground of the husband`s unreasonable behaviour and the wife has defined as unreasonable behaviour the fact that the husband had no regular income, never supported the family and that she was the sole breadwinner of the family since 1979. It is also not disputed that the husband had tried his hand at various jobs such as at being a sales assistant with the Scripture Union (a Christian bookshop) and a partner in a gift shop called Alpha Omega, but after 1980 ceased to have any permanent job. It is not necessary to recite the various allegations of unreasonable behaviour because the dispute before me centres around the division of matrimonial assets and the wife`s claim for maintenance.

A teacher`s working day is about two hours less than a nine-to-five working day. It was clear on the evidence that the husband was no layabout. He did very real work for the family and such work would not be described as `unreasonable behaviour` but for the fact he was the man in the house and expected to provide for the family. I find the husband contributed to the welfare of the family in money, property and work. I find the husband did marketing, cooking, cleaning and caring for the children and that he also made financial contribution consistent with his calling.

An amended petition was filed on 1 March 1993 on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably by reason of the parties having lived apart for a continuous period of three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, namely since October 1988 and the wife consented to a decree being granted. The issues were narrowed down. The parties lived under the same roof but say they lived separate and apart. They continued to communicate with each other through the children on household matters and their children`s welfare but all communication ceased when the husband moved out of the matrimonial home in 1990.

The husband prayed, inter alia, for the custody of the two younger children to be granted to the wife with reasonable access to the husband and repeated the earlier prayer asking for a declaration that the matrimonial home be sold and the net proceeds be distributed equally between the parties, or alternatively the wife to pay the husband half the market value in the amended petition. The amended petition was heard on 4 March 1993 by GP Selvam JC (as he then was) who ordered the prayer for the declaration on the matrimonial property be adjourned to chambers and granted custody of the male child to the husband and the two female children to the wife. He made no order for maintenance.

Numerous affidavits have been filed, including affidavits by the children. The two female children aged 20 and 15 have filed a joint affidavit.

It is a matter of some regret that the children have been drawn into the dispute over the property and asked to file affidavits. They come from a home where they were witnesses to love, affection and sacrifice made for their good, and their participation in this property dispute is unnecessary. I did not permit them to be cross-examined on their affidavit.

When the matter came up for hearing before me on 17 December 1993, having regard to the unusual character of the case, the numerous affidavits and the conflicting evidence of the husband and the wife, I ordered cross-examination of the witnesses. The wife`s evidence is that the husband should not get anything notwithstanding the fact that he is a joint tenant. The husband`s contribution in looking after the home and caring for the family was challenged.

Husband`s case

The husband`s case is that the term `pastor at large` was attributed to him because his work was not restricted to any one church but to all who approached him for talks in schools and churches, to counselling groups and to individuals. He was a pastor and he supported the wife when she was taking courses to upgrade her career position. He took care of the children, the household affairs and maintenance of their livelihood from the modest salary he received from the church. He did the cooking, the marketing and helped the wife with her work.

Under the arrangement, the husband was to stay at home, do the marketing, cooking, cleaning and caring for the children, and could only leave the house to do his work after the wife returned from school.

The husband denies that the wife had at any time asked him to secure a full-time job and that if she had, he would certainly have done something about it, especially if she needed his financial help.

In 1975, he opened a Christian book centre and maintained the family by cooking and looking after the then two children when the children were five and two years old, assisted by the wife`s adoptive mother.

All financial matters were handled by the wife and the husband says their roles were reversed because of their Christian faith and an agreement made at the time of the marriage that he would assist her in her career as best as he could whilst carrying the ministry of God.

Property

The parties purchased the first property at Pandan Gardens in 1979 for $37,300. The husband`s Central Provident Fund (`CPF`) savings of $5,795 was used when the property was purchased. The Pandan Gardens property was sold in 1988 for $104,500.

The profit from the sale of the Pandan Gardens property was used by the wife and in 1988, the parties agreed to purchase a new flat at Block 135 Cashew Road #08-113, Singapore 2367, ie the subject property, for $127,820.

One of the husband`s complaints is that while the wife used his CPF`s savings to purchase the Pandan Gardens flat, she opted not to use his CPF savings for the purchase of the Cashew Road flat.

The financial arrangements were made by the wife. At that time he did freelance counselling and preaching and did full-time work looking after the flat and doing all the cooking and household chores. The responsibility for looking after the children and their schooling fell on him. From time to time, he would receive offerings. The offerings when received by him were placed in a money bag which were utilized for household expenses, food and provision, the children`s necessities, and occasionally, the money was taken out and deposited into the wife`s GIRO account for payment of utilities, telephone, conservancy and other charges.

Besides offerings that he received when he was a pastor, he also gave tuition to 10 persons per week during 1981 to 1989 at $25 an hour. He had 40 persons receiving tuition each month and he earned $1,000 a month. It was accordingly not true to say that he did not earn any money.

When he did the cooking at home, he always made sure that there was a balanced diet available for the family. He bought milk, fruits and food for cooking with monies received from his earnings besides the money that went into the money bag which was kept in the wife`s wardrobe and deposited into her GIRO account for payment of utilities, telephone, conservancy and other charges.

He left the Cashew Road flat after the wife asked him to leave the matrimonial home and changed the locks to the Cashew Road flat to prevent him from getting in or returning to it, and destroyed his potted plants. He denies the wife`s allegation that he contributed nothing, and believes that she is capable of paying him the half share.

The husband says he continued to do the washing and looked after the family until 1990 when he left the home. His claim for a half share of the sale proceeds of the flat is based on the fact that he served mainly as a `housewife` and being around to help the children whilst the wife spent her hours away from the family. He...