Lim Daisy v Koh Nee Seng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hamidah Bte Ibrahim
• Judgment Date: 04 October 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 43
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 43
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The parties were married on the 24/11/92 at the Singapore marriage registry. There is one child to the marriage, a son, aged 4. A decree nisi dissolving the marriage was granted on 14/03/2000 on the wife’s petition that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because the husband had behaved unreasonably. (The husband had initially contested the petition but he later withdrew his answer and the petition proceeded on an uncontested basis). The issues on custody, maintenance for the wife/child and the division of the matrimonial assets were adjourned to be heard in chambers.

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

1) That the Petitioner(wife) is granted custody, care and control of the only child of the marriage namely, T (m) born on 17/3/96 with access to the Respondent(husband) to continue as per order of court dated 27/9/99.

2) Maintenance Order under M/S/S 1925/99 in which Respondent was ordered to pay $100 per month as maintenance for Petitioner and $200 as maintenance for the child is to continue.

3) That the Petitioner is to transfer her rights, title and interest in the matrimonial property at [address], to the Respondent upon the Respondent paying to the Petitioner the sum of $27,000, within 4 months from decree nisi absolute and Respondent to bear all transfer expenses.

4) In the event, Respondent fail to make payment of the sum of $27,000 as directed under paragraph 3 of this order, the matrimonial property shall be sold in the open market and the proceeds of sale less outstanding loan, and all reasonable expenses connected to sale, shall be divided in the proportion of 80% to the Respondent and 20% to the Petitioner, with each party making the necessary refund to their respective CPF accounts from their respective share of the proceeds of sale.

5) Costs to the Petitioner fixed at $1,000.

6) Access on Wednesday to be extended till 9:00pm and access on Saturday is ordered to be from 8:00am to 10:00pm.

3. The husband has now appealed only against paragraph 1 of the above orders as he is seeking an order that he be granted sole custody, care and control of the child. As such, my grounds of decision will be confined to the issue of custody.

4. The parties have been living separately and apart since the 13^th of October, 1998 when the wife left the matrimonial home together with their son. According to the wife, she left because she was unable to tolerate the husband’s conduct towards her and their son. After the wife left the husband, she and the son stayed with her mother and her sister at her mother’s residence. Since...