Ferdinands Emily Theresa v Wee Lian Chye Peter

• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Doris Lai-Chia Lee Mui
• Judgment Date: 30 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 49
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 49
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The Petitioner ('wife') and the Respondent ('husband') were married on the 11 December 1976. On 4 March 1999, the wife filed a Petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably in that the husband had behaved in such a manner that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.

2. The husband filed his Answer and Cross-Petition alleging unreasonable behaviour on the part of the wife. The parties were allowed to proceed on both the Petition and Cross-Petition and a decree nisi was granted on 28 December 1999.

3. The parties have three children namely P (f) age 22 years, S (f) age 20 years and M (m) age 9 years at the time of the hearing of the ancillary matters. The wife was granted the custody, care and control of the children earlier.

4. By an order of Court dated 29 September 1999 the husband was ordered to pay to the wife the following maintenance:-

(i) $600 per month for S

(ii) $600 per month for M

(iii) $200 per month for the wife

5. This order was made without prejudice to the application by the wife for maintenance from September 1998 to the date of the order.

6. On 12 October 2000 having considered the evidence presented before me and the submissions of the parties' respective counsels, I made the following orders:-

(1) "The Respondent shall with effect from 4 November 2000 have access to the youngest child namely M Joshua Wee Pin every Saturday from10 am to 1 pm. The Respondent shall pick up the child at the Family Court and return the child at the child's home;

(2) (a) The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner a sum of $1,400 per month with effect from 1 October 2000 being maintenance for the two younger children in the proportion of $800 per month for S, and $600 per month for M;

(b) The Respondent shall continue to pay maintenance for S until such time she completes her present course at Raffles La Salle International Design school;

(3) The matrimonial property known as [address] shall be sold in the open market within 3 months of this order and the proceeds of sale after deducting the outstanding housing loan with Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and the costs incurred in the sale, shall be divided in the proportion of 45% to the Petitioner and 55% to the Respondent with each party making the necessary refund to their CPF account plus accrued interest from their respective share of the proceeds;

(4) The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner a sum of $20,000 being lump sum maintenance for the Petitioner such sum to be paid from the Respondent's share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property;

(5) Each party to bear his/her own costs;

(6) Access in respect of M is fixed for review on 19 December 2000 at 9.15 am.

(7) Parties be at liberty to apply."

7. The husband has appealed against order (3) above and also on the fact that I made no order to suspend maintenance for the period April to July 2000.

Matrimonial Home

8. The matrimonial home known as [address] was purchased in 1987 for $285,000.

9. It was alleged by the wife that she moved out of the home with the children in July 1999 due to the husband's violence and since then the husband has had sole occupation of the home while she and the children have been living in a rented flat.

10. The parties' direct contribution towards the home were as follows:-

By the wife - (i) From CPF $16,528.59

Interest $ 7,806.04

$24,334.63

(ii) Cash $ 4,488.95

(iii) Cash from earlier property $18,316.30

By husband - (i) From CPF $346,863.49

Interest $102,991.85

$449,855.34

(ii) Cash $ 16,532.46

(iii) Renovation loan $ 38,500.00

(iv) Cash from earlier property $ 18,316.30

11. Excluding the interest to be charged by CPF Board, the parties' direct contributions would be 8.5% by the wife and 91.5% by the husband.

12. It was the wife's contention that although she had not contributed as much towards the payment of instalments, she had been contributing towards the household expenses and this was the unwritten but tacit...