Maathavi w/o Mathi Alegen v Mathi Alegen s/o Gothendaraman

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yap Siew Yong
• Judgment Date: 25 February 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGDC 29
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2002] SGDC 29
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. Parties were married on 7 February 1990 and after the marriage they stayed at [address] ( "the Bedok flat"). They had two children, a girl, 11 years old and a boy, 7 years old at the time of the hearing. On 21 July 2000, a Decree Nisi was granted on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably in that the parties had lived apart for at least 4 years, since 25 November 1995. All the ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in chambers.

2. Each party thereafter successfully applied to cross-examine the other on the affidavits filed for the ancillary matters . At the conclusion of the hearing of the ancillary matters, I made several Orders including the following:

A. (1) The Petitioner and the Respondent shall have joint custody of the two children namely M (f) and K (m) with care and control to the Petitioner.

B. (1) The Respondent shall pay a sum of $450 per month as maintenance for the two children of the marriage.

C. (1) The Petitioner is entitled to retain the Housing Development Board flat at Apt Blk 138 Lorong Ah Soo #13-105 Singapore 530138.

(2) The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner a sum of $58,000.00 together with interest at the rate as prescribed by the Central Provident Fund Board for its Ordinary account with effect from this order being her share of the matrimonial assets and the said sum of $58,000.00 together with interest shall be paid and further be secured in the following manner:-

(a) The Respondent shall on or before 28 June 2015 sell the Matrimonial property at [address] (hereinafter referred to as the Bedok flat) and pay from the proceeds of sale the said sum of $58,000.00 together with all interest accrued thereon from the date of this order. Pending such sale the Respondent shall be entitled to the exclusive occupation of the Bedok flat.

(b) The Respondent shall allow the Petitioner to lodge a caveat on the Bedok flat and the same shall be withdrawn by the Petitioner upon payment of the said sum of $58,000.00 together with the interest accrued.

(c) The said sum of $58,000 shall be charged against the CPF monies standing to the credit of the Respondent’s CPF ordinary account with immediate effect.

(3) In the event of the Respondent paying the sum of $58,000 together with the accrued interest on or before the 28^th of June 2015 the Petitioner upon receiving such payment shall take steps to file a Withdrawal of Caveat with the Land Titles Registry and further notify the Board to discharge the charge in respect of the Charged Amount.

(4) Both parties are entitled to retain for themselves their respective savings (if any).

D. Each party shall bear its own costs.

The wife is appealing against the above Orders A (1), B(1) and C (2) (a). She wants sole custody of the two children and $600 per month as maintenance for the two children of the marriage. She also wants the sum of $58,000 which I had awarded her to be paid out much sooner, out of the proceeds of sale of the husband’s HDB Bedok flat. She is seeking an order that the said flat be sold within 6 months. Finally she wants the husband to reimburse her for the sum of $1,900 being the costs of the bank charges incurred by her in respect of the bank statements she had obtained at the request of the husband and which were used to cross-examine her..

Custody of the Children

3. The wife is an Air Material Specialist in the Singapore Air force and the husband is a relief taxi driver. The wife is currently residing at Apt Blk 138 Lorong Ah Soo #13-105 Singapore ("the Hougang flat"). By an Order of Court made on 18 March 1996 by Justice S Rajendran in Originating Summons No.1255 of 1995, the parties were granted joint custody of the two children with care and control to the wife. The husband was granted access to both the children from Saturdays 2 pm to Sundays 2 pm. By a further Order of Court made on 22 June 1998 by the Honourable Judicial Commissioner Tay Yong Kwang, the husband was granted one week of continuous access to the children during the June and December school holidays in addition to the weekly access.

4. At the hearing before me the wife sought sole custody of both the children. She stated that the current joint custody order had proved to be "obstructive" and not in the best interest of the children. She drew the attention of the Court to several matters which in her view justify the Court revoking the joint custody order. She stated that the husband’s relationship with her and her family members was very bad and access to the children had to take place at the police station. Since the making of the joint custody order the husband had not met her to discuss matters pertaining to the children. The husband had also not bothered about which school their son was to be registered for Primary One. The husband had also been irresponsible in returning the children to her on time after his access hours. There was an episode which led to the...