CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date06 June 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGHC 95
Citation[2006] SGHC 95
Published date07 June 2006
Plaintiff CounselBala Chandran s/o Kandiah (Mallal & Namazie)
Defendant CounselFaizal Wahyuni (Faizal Wahyuni & Co)
Subject MatterFamily Law,Maintenance,Assessment of division of matrimonial assets by trial judge,Applicable principles in varying trial judge's assessment

6 June 2006

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The petitioner married the respondent on 18 September 1986. At that time she was 25 years old, and he was 28 years old. They have two children from the marriage, a boy aged 16 and a girl aged 13. The petitioner was a housewife and the respondent, who left the family in October 2003, claimed to be a freelance car polisher earning $1,300 a month, a claim that the judge below was not prepared to accept. In tracing the respondent’s career history, the judge noted that he had reached the position of managing director with Morgan Crucibles Pte Ltd, earning $6,300 a month, and by 2000 he was earning $7,200 a month. But she noted that he was retrenched in 2002. The parties divorced on 24 September 2004 when a decree nisi was granted to the petitioner on the ground of unreasonable behaviour on the part of her husband, the respondent. The district judge who heard the application on the ancillary matters made an order on 3 February 2006 (“the Order”) ordering that:

(a) Custody, care and control of the children of the marriage are to be granted to the wife, with reasonable access to the husband.

(b) The husband is to pay maintenance of $400 per month for each child, being $800 in total, with effect from 15 February 2006, and thereafter on the 15th of every month.

(c) The husband is to pay maintenance of $200 per month for the wife, with effect from 15 February 2006, and thereafter on the 15th of every month.

(d) The maintenance payments are to be made into the wife’s bank account, with the account number to be inserted into the Order.

(e) Within six months of the order, the matrimonial home (a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat at Rivervale Walk) is to be sold in the open market. The sale proceeds are to be used to make payment of the following items, which are stated in order of priority:

(i) to settle the HDB resale levy (if any);

(ii) to effect the requisite Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) refunds to each of the party’s CPF accounts in respect of the moneys utilised for the purchase of the matrimonial property, together with accrued interest, as determined by the CPF Board (“the Board”); and

(iii) to settle the costs, expenses and disbursements relating to the sale of the matrimonial property.

(f) The balance of the net proceeds of sale is to be distributed to the parties equally.

(g) Subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder, and pursuant to s 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed), the wife shall be entitled to $162,000 of the husband’s CPF moneys which shall be charged against the CPF moneys then standing to the credit of the husband’s CPF ordinary account with effect from the making of the refund of the requisite CPF moneys from the sales proceeds of the matrimonial home (“the Charged Amount”).

(h) The Charged Amount or the CPF moneys standing to the credit of the husband’s ordinary account are to be paid to:

(i) the husband or his committee of persons and estate when he becomes entitled to and does withdraw his CPF moneys; or

(ii) the husband’s CPF nominees or beneficiaries upon his death; and

(iii) if the CPF moneys are less than the Charged Amount, the lesser sum shall be payable to the wife at such time.

(i) The husband is restrained, whether by himself, his servants, or agents, howsoever from receiving...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 30 August 2012
    ...Leong [1999] 1 SLR (R) 554; [1999] 3 SLR 506 (refd) Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye [2007] 3 SLR (R) 520; [2007] 3 SLR 520 (refd) MZ v NA [2006] SGHC 95 (refd) NI v NJ [2007] 1 SLR (R) 75; [2007] 1 SLR 75 (refd) NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR (R) 743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (folld) Pang Rosaline v Chan Kong......
  • TIT v TIU and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 May 2016
    ...court will also be slow to make minor adjustments for idiosyncratic reasons (see Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah at [46], citing MZ v NA [2006] SGHC 95 at [5]). A clean break is desirable whenever feasible (see AYM v AYL and another appeal [2014] 4 SLR 559 (at [18])). This was especially so i......
  • Att v Ats
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 3 April 2012
    ...3 SLR 225 (refd) Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye [2007] 3 SLR (R) 520; [2007] 3 SLR 520 (refd) MZ v NA [2006] SGDC 96 (refd) MZ v NA [2006] SGHC 95 (refd) NI v NJ [2007] 1 SLR (R) 75; [2007] 1 SLR 75 (refd) NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR (R) 743; [2007] 3 SLR 743 (folld) Quek Lee Tiam v Ho Kim Swee [1......
  • Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai Huah
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 10 April 2007
    ...[2005] SGHC 209 at [14], there is a presumption that the decision appealed against is correct. More recently, it was stated in MZ v NA [2006] SGHC 95 at [5] It is true that the court has a duty to ensure a fair result, but it is just as important that there is a consistency in the key princ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT