Kupusamy s/o Jaganathan v Kannaiya Kala Devi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: C R Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 119
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 2709 of 1993
• Date: 08 May 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1997
• Plaintiff Counsel: SK Kumar and Shanker (SK Kumar & Associates)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 119
• Defendant Counsel: R Kalamohan and Regina Vallabadoss (Niru & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Value of matrimonial flat and resale flats increased since making of consent order,'Package' order relating to matrimonial assets and maintenance,Family Law,Whether court could vary order so that sum payable to wife would be increased,Whether consent order could be varied by court,Variation,Variation of consent order,Consent orders,Division,Husband failing to comply with order,ss 106 & 112 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Matrimonial assets,Failure to comply with some terms of order

Judgment:

1.CR RAJAH JC

The petitioner husband was granted a decree nisi on 9 March 1995 on his uncontested divorce petition. The decree nisi incorporated a consent order which provided as follows:

(1) the respondent is to give up all her interest in the matrimonial apartment being Block 734, Yishun Avenue 5, #07-414, Singapore upon payment to her of the sum of $35,000 within six months from the date hereof. On receipt of payment she is to execute the requisite documents required by the Housing & Development Board;

(2) the petitioner is to transfer to the respondent the sum of $15,000 held in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent in their joint account No 51-03350-09 with DBS Bank Yishun Branch. All accrued interest is to be paid to the petitionerand the transfer is to be effected forthwith;

(3) the respondent will have no further claim against the petitioner including maintenance; and

(4) there be no order as to costs.

2.At the time the consent order was entered into the matrimonial flat was estimated to be worth $100,000. The respondent wife was prepared to settle her claims against the petitioner upon being paid half the value thereof, ie $50,000. It was also part of the terms of the settlement package that $15,000 be paid forthwith and the balance $35,000 within six months. The consent order also shows that this settlement package included her giving up all other claims she may have against the petitioner including claims for maintenance.

3.On 9 June 1995, ie three months after the consent order was made, the respondent`s former solicitors, who were also her solicitors at the hearing of the uncontested divorce, wrote to the petitioner`s solicitors asking for payment of the $35,000 referred to in order (1). The $15,000 referred to in order (2) seems already to have been paid by then. No response was received from the respondent to this letter. On 8 April 1996, almost 13 months after the consent order was made, the respondent`s former solicitors received payment of $5,000 from the petitioner`s solicitors. They sent their cheque for $5,000 to the respondent under cover of their letter of 10 April 1996. After receiving this $5,000, the respondent asked her former solicitors to press for the balance of $30,000. They did so by their letter of 21 May 1996 to the petitioner`s solicitors asking for this $30,000 to be paid by 27 May 1996. No such payment or any further part payment was made as requested or at all.

4.The respondent had intended to use the $35,000 to purchase a resale HDB flat for herself. However, because the petitioner had only paid her $5,000 thereof (and even that only after some 12 months) she was unable to do so. In the meantime the price of resale flats had risen considerably. So had the value of the matrimonial flat. It would cost her much more to buy a resale flat now. In these circumstances, she applied through her present solicitors on 22 August 1996, more than 17 months after the date of the consent order, asking for...