Kalwant Singh v Amarjeet Kour d/o Sarjit Singh

• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: See Kee Oon
• Judgment Date: 15 January 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 4
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 4
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Background

1. The appellant husband is the respondent in the divorce proceedings. The husband and wife registered their marriage on 8 November 1982. There are two children to the marriage, S, born on 26 January 1986, and R, born on 14 February 1998

2. The wife obtained a divorce decree nisi on 15 July 1999 on the ground of the husband’s unreasonable behaviour. The wife’s petition was not contested, although the husband had filed an answer to the petition denying the wife's allegations. Among other things, she cited the husband's violent and uncontrollable temper, and his physical abuse of both her and the children as instances of unreasonable behaviour. She further alleged that the husband was a habitual drinker who would return home very late and very drunk after his drinking sessions to vent his frustrations on the children in fits of temper. He was not concerned about the children and had not maintained the family on a regular basis.

The ancillary matters

3. The hearing in respect of the ancillary matters was concerned with the issues of custody, maintenance for the wife and the two children, and division of the matrimonial assets, in particular the matrimonial flat at [address] (‘the matrimonial flat’). The wife was also seeking an order for the husband to bear the costs of the divorce and ancillaries.

i. Custody, care and control

4. There was an interim order for limited access to be given to the husband. The wife sought to have custody, care and control of both children. The wife pointed to the husband's unreasonable behaviour as cited in her petition for divorce. The files in respect of previous applications for protection orders taken out by the wife and her father against the husband were placed before me. The wife contended that the children were fearful of the husband. She maintained that joint custody was not feasible in view of the continuing acrimony between the parties.

5. The husband asked to have joint custody of the children, with care and control given to the wife. He sought joint custody of at least one of the children. Although he did not contest the divorce petition, he contended that despite the applications for protection orders, no protection order had actually been made against him. He had given undertakings to the wife and her father without admitting liability. Consequently, the applications for protection orders were withdrawn. He had not breached his undertakings thus far.

6. There were...