Lim Poh Lin Ruby v Foo Jong Peng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hamidah Bte Ibrahim
• Judgment Date: 09 May 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 16
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 16
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The Petitioner ( wife ) and the Respondent ( husband ) were married at the Registry of Marriages in Singapore on the 26/10/1985. There is one child to the marriage, a daughter, aged 11. The wife’s petition for the marriage to be dissolved on the ground that it had irretrievably broken down because of the husband’s unreasonable conduct was not contested by the husband. A decree nisi was hence pronounced on the 21/10/1999 with the usual consequential order that the ancillaries be adjourned to be heard in chambers.

2. On the 10/03/2000, the ancillaries were heard before me and after hearing the parties, I made the following orders:-

By consent:-

1) Petitioner to have custody, care and control of the only child of the marriage with Respondent to have access every Saturday and Sunday from 9:00am to 2:00pm.

2) Respondent is ordered to pay $800 per month as maintenance for child with effect from 1/03/2000 and thereafter on the 1^st of each month. Payment into a bank account to be designated by Petitioner and it is further ordered that

3) Parties have agreed that the matrimonial property at Blk 509, Calrose Garden, #01-02 Yio Chu Kang be sold either by way of private treaty or enbloc sale and

4) Proceeds of sale to be used to pay housing loan (No.1) first, and then housing loan (No.2) and outstanding overdraft in the proportion of 1/3 and 2/3 in favour of the Petitioner.

5) Respondent’s father to be paid $80,000 if sale is by way of private treaty and $120,000 if sale is by way of enbloc.

6) And it is further ordered that the balance of the proceeds of sale shall be divided in the proportion of 65% to the Petitioner and 35% to the Respondent with each party to refund to their respective CPF accounts all monies and interest utilised in the said purchase.

7) Respondent to pay lump sum maintenance of $24,000 to the Petitioner.

8) Said sum to be deducted from his share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial property.

9) Costs to the Petitioner fixed at $2,500.

3. The husband has appealed only against the order on the division of the matrimonial property and as such, my grounds of decision will be confined to only this issue.

4. At the onset of the hearing of the ancillaries, the parties, to their credit, had reached agreement on the issues of custody of the only child of the marriage, her maintenance and the outstanding liabilities on the matrimonial property. Since the husband was prepared to let the wife have the sole custody, care and control of the only child of the marriage and was willing to pay $800 per month as maintenance for the child, orders by consent were made to this effect. The only dispute was as to the amount of maintenance for the wife and the division of the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

5. The matrimonial property of the couple...