Koo Shirley v Mok Kong Chua Kenneth

• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 07 March 1989
• Neutral Citation: [1989] SGHC 22
• Citation: [1989] SGHC 22
• Defendant Counsel: Aloysius Leng (Abraham Low & Partners)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jeane Wu (R Ramasan)
• Date: 07 March 1989
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 24 of 1985
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 106 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Husband failing to disclose monthly income,Family Law,Whether such allegation sufficient ground for court not to increase maintenance,What constitutes fair division for parties,What constitutes matrimonial assets in case division,Husband alleging increase in maintenance undermines his motivation to work

Cur Adv Vult

The petitioner and the respondent were married on 22 March 1975, and they have three children, namely: (i) Ruth Mok Cheah Ling, born on 18 May 1976; (ii) Priscilla Mok Ai Ling, born on 14 October 1980, and (iii) Daniel Mok Chuan Qun, born on 24 September 1981.

On 14 June 1984, because of the unreasonable behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner left the matrimonial home taking along with her the three children. On 7 January 1985 the petitioner presented this petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, and she relied on the fact that the respondent had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The petition was initially contested and an answer was filed. At that time, the three children were, and had been since 4 June 1984, in the de facto custody of the petitioner. The respondent on 4 July 1986 obtained an interim order giving him access to the three children at certain specific times and place. Subsequently, on 8 August 1988, on application by the respondent, leave was given for the answer to be withdrawn, and the petition thenceforth proceeded as uncontested. It came before me for hearing on 11 August 1988. The respondent was represented by his counsel at the hearing and did not dispute or challenge the evidence adduced by the petitioner of his unreasonable behaviour. I accordingly granted to the petitioner the decree nisi to be made absolute on the expiry of three months and ordered that (i) the custody of the three children, (ii) the maintenance of the petitioner and the three children and (iii) the division of matrimonial property be adjourned for further hearing in chambers. I also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In due course, the three matters came on for hearing before me. At the first hearing I could not dispose of the matters for two reasons. First, there was not enough time to hear arguments from both counsel, and secondly, the respondent had not given sufficient particulars of his means and assets in the affidavit filed by him with the result that it was not possible to resolve the questions of maintenance and division of matrimonial property. Much of his lengthy affidavit had been devoted to seeking to rebut his unreasonable behaviour which led to the breakdown of the marriage. That was an exercise in futility, as the fact of his unreasonable behaviour had been established at the hearing of the petition, and it was not open to him to resurrect such an issue. I therefore adjourned the hearing to another date and at the same time directed the respondent to file an affidavit setting out in full his assets and income and also made an interim order prohibiting the respondent from letting out the property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore to anyone or permitting anyone (other than the petitioner and the children) to occupy it until further order. Subsequently, two affidavits were filed: one by the respondent sworn to on 17 November 1988 and one by the petitioner in reply sworn to on 25 November 1988. The matters then came on for hearing again on 28 November 1988 and at the conclusion I made an order as follows:

(i) that custody of the three children be given to the petitioner with access to the respondent as provided in the interim order of 4 July 1986;

(ii) that the respondent do pay to the petitioner for the maintenance of the petitioner and the three children a sum of $2,500 pm with effect from 1 December 1988;

(iii) that by way of division of the matrimonial property the respondent do transfer his share and interest in the matrimonial property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore to the petitioner free from encumbrances and that such transfer to be effected and completed not later than three months from the date thereof;

(iv) that the respondent do deliver vacant possession of the property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore to the petitioner not later than four weeks from the date thereof;

(v) that until the property, No 26, Alnwick Road, Singapore is transferred to the petitioner, the respondent be restrained from charging, selling or otherwise disposing of the property known as Blk 42, #01-04, Goodluck Garden, Singapore;

(vi) that the costs of the hearing of the matters be borne by the respondent, and

(vii) that the parties be at liberty to apply.

After the conclusion of the hearing an affidavit affirmed by the respondent`s solicitor, Mr Aloysius Leng, on 2 December 1988 was filed on behalf of the respondent purporting to give further particulars of the respondent`s assets. I do not know precisely the purpose of this affidavit, but presumably it was filed in connection with an application to me to hear further arguments which I refused. I was not persuaded by the content of that affidavit to alter in any way the decision which I had made earlier.

On the question of custody of the three children, there was no dispute: the respondent had agreed that custody should be given to the petitioner and he only wanted access as provided in the interim order made on 4 July 1986. Paragraph I of the order was therefore made in terms as agreed.

On the question of maintenance, there was a maintenance order made by the magistrate`s court on 11 December 1987, No MO 367 of 1987, under which the respondent was ordered to pay with effect from 1 January 1988 a sum of $2,100 pm for the maintenance of the petitioner and the children which sum was apportioned as follows: (i) $1,000 to the petitioner; (ii) $550 to the first child; (iii) $350 to the second child, and (iv) $200 to the third child.

Before me, the petitioner requested for the amount of maintenance to be increased to $2,728 pm, and gave a breakdown of the expenses justifying, the sum of $2,728 pm. This increase was resisted by the respondent.

The petitioner is a housewife, and at the date of hearing she and the three children were staying at Blk 5000-J, #17-41, Lagoon View, Marine Parade Road, Singapore 1544 which was rented at a monthly rent of $500 pm. The petitioner has been and is looking after the children, attending to the household duties such as cooking and washing for them. The respondent is at the present working in Japan. However, he did not specifically say the name of his employer but it appears from the certificate which he exhibited and marked `A` in his affidavit sworn to on 17 November 1988 that he is working in an organization called Asian Productivity Organization. Nor did he say the nature of his work or the operations of that organization. He said that his net monthly salary was approximately the equivalent of $6,164, out of which he said he had to repay a small sum to his employer in respect of an advance initially made on him. He did not mention anything about living and other allowances or other perquisite, monetary or otherwise, which he received or enjoyed. Notwithstanding my direction, he failed to make a full disclosure of his monthly income, as distinguished from merely his salary from his employment.

I do not believe that the equivalent of $6,164 is all that he is earning from his present employer. I think he earns more than that. Prior to his present employment, he was working in Malayan Banking Berhad (the petitioner said he was working in The Malayan Finance Corporation Berhad which is a subsidiary of Malayan Banking Berhad) and was also a part-time lecturer at the National Productivity Board. According to the petitioner, his net salary for the year of assessment 1987 was $77,220.60 (about $6,435 pm); that was not denied by him. I would expect his income (as distinguished from net salary from his then employer) in 1987 and 1988 respectively to be more than that. He left Malayan Banking Bhd to join this Japanese organization in Japan, and one would expect that the total emolument from his new employer would exceed the total of what he received from Malayan Banking Bhd and National Productivity Board. There must have been some financial attractions or inducements to him to join this organization and work abroad. His financial position in terms of income must have improved. It is unfortunate that he did not produce or disclose his terms and conditions of service with his present...