Kishore Shewaram Mohinani v Padmabai d/o Ramchand Ladharam Daswani @Pooja Kishore Mohinani @ Pojaah Mohinani

• Judge: Chia Wee Kiat
• Judgment Date: 15 February 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGDC 46
• Citation: [2013] SGDC 46
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No. 2404 of 1996
• Published date: 25 February 2013
• Hearing Date: 28 November 2012,25 October 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. Nandwani Manoj Prakash (M/s Grabriel ALW Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

District Judge Chia Wee Kiat: Introduction

The Petitioner filed Summons No. 650070 of 2012 to rescind the monthly maintenance of $2,000 for the Respondent made in an Order of Court dated 28 June 2005. The Respondent filed a cross-application in Summons No. 650140 of 2012 to vary the existing order for monthly maintenance to a lump sum maintenance of $480,000 or such amount as the Court thinks just and fair.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed both applications and ordered each party to bear their own costs. The Petitioner, being dissatisfied with my decision, has filed Notice of Appeal. I now set out my grounds of decision.

Background

The parties were married in 1976 and separated in 1992. After four years of separation, the Petitioner obtained a decree of divorce in 1996. The Petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance of $4,000 per month of which $2,000 went towards the maintenance of their daughter. In 2005, the Petitioner applied to rescind the maintenance but the court ordered the maintenance to be discontinued only with respect to their daughter. In 2009, the Petitioner again applied for the rescission of the Respondent’s maintenance but the application was denied. He appealed to the High Court which dismissed his appeal.

This is the third attempt by the Petitioner to rescind the maintenance order.

Petitioner’s position

According to the Petitioner, the Respondent has recently obtained a substantial inheritance as she was granted the probate for the estate of her deceased mother in DCP 2808/2011 issued on 14 December 2011. The estate is valued at $1,819,992.26 and at the same time included an immovable property located at Simei Rise valued at $1,250,000. The Respondent inherited half of what her late mother left her and is thus financially capable and does not need maintenance. In contrast, the Petitioner asserts that his income capacity has decreased while his financial obligation has increased. He is 63 years of age and has recently undergone knee surgery. He has also been diagnosed as suffering from Sciatica and has been referred to the Geriatric Specialist Clinic for treatment of memory and other cognitive issues. Given his age, health condition, commitment towards supporting their son and the continuing support to his remarriage, he cannot stretch himself further to extend maintenance to the Respondent with his monthly income of about $4,000.

Moreover, the Petitioner has maintained the Respondent since 1992 and has already given her more than $574,000. He has sufficiently discharged his duties to the Respondent as an ex-spouse and should be allowed to be free from all encumbrances after two decades.

Respondent’s position

The Respondent does not dispute that she has inherited half of her mother’s estate. Her inheritance is approximately $910,000. She is prepared to show a copy of the Will to the Court, but not to the Petitioner, to protect the confidentiality of the beneficiaries. The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner himself has received proceeds from the sale of his two properties, St. Patrick Garden and Movitex House, which she believes to total over $8.8 million. She pointed out that the...