Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Hamidah Bte Ibrahim
• Judgment Date: 22 September 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 41
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 41
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The parties were married on the 11/12/1970 at the Singapore marriage registry. Their 2 children are both adults. The marriage was dissolved on 20/04/99 on the wife’s petition and the husband’s cross-petition that the marriage broke irretrievably because of unreasonable conduct on the part of the other. The issues of the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife were adjourned to be heard in chambers.

2. These were heard before me and on the 19/07/2000, I made the following orders:-

1) That the matrimonial property known as No.83, Namly Avenue, Singapore is to be sold in the open market within 6 months from today and the proceeds of sale, less expenses connected to sale, to be divided equally between the parties.

2) That the Petitioner is to be given the 1^st option to be exercised within 1 month, to purchase the Respondent’s share.

3) No order as to maintenance.

4) No order as to costs.

The wife has now appealed against the above orders.

3. Although the parties were married in 1970, they had been living together since December, 1962. The wife was then an 18 year old student and according to the husband he provided her with food and lodging up to 1970 i.e. for a period of 8 years. The wife then went on to continue her studies at the university until she graduated in 1968. At the time of their marriage the wife was employed as a school teacher while the husband was a clerk. He had started working since June, 1958.

4. In 1979, the parties bought the subject matrimonial property, a 2 storey semi-detached house at No. 83, Namly Avenue. The total purchase price inclusive of costs and renovations amounted to $229,000. This is undisputed between the parties. To finance the purchase of the house, the parties then borrowed a sum of $90,000 from their employers (both were working in the civil service) to be paid at the rate of $633 per month. This, they did, in equal amounts of $316.50 per person.

5. With regard to the balance sum of $139,000, both the wife and the husband have conflicting versions as to the extent of their respective contributions. The husband said that he had paid $125,000. However, the wife claimed that the husband only contributed $22,768.82 and therefore she had contributed $107,047.00.

6. However, when I examined the figures further, I found that both the wife and husband were not able to substantiate their claims. Firstly, the wife claimed that inclusive in the amount of...