Chia Hock Hua v Chong Choo Je

• Judge: Amarjeet Singh JC
• Judgment Date: 01 August 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 200
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 200
• Defendant Counsel: Thio Ying Ying (Chor Pee & Co)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Wing Chong (Ng & Ng)
• Date: 01 August 1994
• Docket Number: Divorce No 1648 of 1991
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,s 110 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Wife,Maintenance,Whether agreement must be sanctioned by court,Whether spouses reached valid and reasonable agreement as to maintenance

Cur Adv Vult

The issue arose as to whether the spouses reached a valid and reasonable agreement between themselves in respect of a capital sum in settlement of all future claims to maintenance payable to the wife and paid to her before institution of proceedings and if so whether it should be sanctioned by the court under s 110 of the Women`s Charter (Cap 353) (the Act), if not what payment was due to her.

The petitioner (the husband) and the respondent (the wife) herein had been cohabitating since 1974. On 3 April 1987 they got married in Perth, Western Australia but unhappily the marriage was not a success. In December 1987, after many quarrels, the husband left the matrimonial home in Australia and since that date the parties had lived separate and apart. The husband and the wife returned separately to Singapore. The wife returned sometime in November 1989 but went back to Australia in March 1993.

On 25 June 1991 the husband filed a divorce petition dated 21 June 1991 with a certificate of consent of the wife bearing the same date on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irretrievably as the parties had lived separate and apart for a period of three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition as stated above and that the wife consented to the decree being granted.

In para 8 of the petition, the husband stated as follows:

No arrangement has been made or is proposed to be made between the parties for the support of the petitioner save and except that the petitioner has paid the respondent S$30,000 by way of an agreed lump sum in full and final settlement of her claims to ancillary relief in particular maintenance, periodical payments and/or lump sum.

The petition was eventually served on the wife on 7 April 1992 and the wife duly filed the notice of entry of appearance on 15 April 1992 and an answer on 28 April 1992. In the answer, the wife admitted receiving the $30,000 which sum was paid on 27 May 1991 but denied the basis of the payment as set out in para 8 of the petition. The actual agreement signed by the wife was in the following terms:

Receipt

I, Chong Choo Je, NRIC No 0056644-F of No 38, Jalan Sukachita, Singapore 1335, hereby acknowledge receipt of the lump sum payment of Singapore Dollars Thirty thousand only (S$30,000) from Mr Chia Hock Hwa, NRIC No 0301989/F, in full and final settlement of and in lieu of my claim for maintenance and/or periodical payments and whatsoever claim, if any.

Dated 27 May 1991

Sgd

Chong Choo Je

At the hearing of the petition which was uncontested a decree nisi was granted to the petitioner on 16 December 1992 to be made absolute within three months. These proceedings for ancillary relief for maintenance for the wife arose thereafter.

The issues at the hearing before me were:

(1) Whether the agreement to pay the wife the sum of S$30,000 and its payment on 27 May 1991 to the wife was a valid and reasonable agreement.

(2) Whether the court should give effect to the agreement by approving the same under s 110 of the Act.

(3) In the event that the court did not approve the above agreement, whether the wife is entitled to maintenance and if so to what amount.

In respect of the first and second issue, reference to s 110 of the Act may be made:

An agreement for the payment, in money or other property, of a capital sum in settlement of all future claims to maintenance, shall not be effective until it has been approved, or approved subject to conditions, by the court, but when so approved shall be a good defence to any claim for maintenance.

Section 110 confirms the position in common law as expounded in that the wife cannot enter into a binding agreement and thereby waive her rights to claim maintenance unless that agreement meets with the approval of the court, the rational being that a wife should not be maintained out of the public purse. Section 110 therefore makes parallel provisions as in common law for the courts to exercise their supervisory powers to review or to approve all arrangements between husband and wife on issues of maintenance on grounds when maintenance is excluded or is inadequate.

Counsel for the wife submitted before me that the agreement was not a valid one and should not be approved by the court. Counsel`s submissions were based on the wife`s affidavits that the wife had returned to Singapore to try to save the marriage but was unsuccessful. She had found a job as a sales executive and earned a salary of $1,600. The petitioner had promised to buy her a new car for her use in Singapore on her return to Singapore, the estimated cost of which was $60,000. She reminded the husband on several occasions about the car and he finally agreed and gave her $30,000 to buy the car. On the day of collection of the cheque she was forced to go and collect it from his lawyers` office. This was sometime in July 1991. She was required to sign a piece of paper and if she sold the car to give the petitioner a first option to buy if she were to return to Australia. The petitioner had also insisted that she should sign a certificate of consent to a decree being granted on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down as they had lived apart for three years. She was tricked into going into the husband`s lawyers` office and at his going back on his word. She `signed the papers without further thought as to its meaning and effect` and that the so-called agreement in respect of the acceptance by her of $30,000 was merely entitled `receipt` and could not be regarded as an agreement. She said in March 1993 before leaving for Australia she made the offer to the husband but as he was hardly in Singapore, he decided not to take up the offer and purchase the car. She had not challenged the petition because there was no hope in saving the marriage.

The husband in his affidavits denied that he gave the $30,000 as alleged by the wife to purchase the car or that he intended to re-buy it back from her. He asserted that the wife had demanded the lump sum paid in lieu of...