NK v NL

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 21 November 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 204
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 21 March 2007
• Year: 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kanagavijayan (Kana & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Sarbrinder Singh (Kertar & Co)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Custody,Care and control and access,Whether infant's welfare better looked after by mother or father,Maintenance,Wife,Maintenance of former wife,Quantum of maintenance,Matters to be considered,Section 114 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed),Matrimonial assets,Division,Apportionment of assets,Section 112(2) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 204

21 November 2006

Lai Siu Chiu J:

1 The parties herein were granted (on an amended petition and cross- petition) a divorce decree nisi on 3 May 2005. Subsequent thereto, ancillary matters came up before me for determination. I then made the following orders on the issues of division of matrimonial assets and custody of the children:

(a) NL (“the husband”) was to pay NK (“the wife”) $300,000 for the wife’s share of the matrimonial property (“the Property”) in consideration for which the wife would execute a transfer of her interest in the Property in favour of the husband, who was to reimburse the wife’s Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) withdrawals plus interest which she had utilised in the purchase.

(b) The transfer of the Property was to be effected within 30 days of the date of the order of court.

(c) The husband was to transfer to the wife the title to a Mercedes Benz vehicle (“the Car”) and pay off the Car’s outstanding hire-purchase instalments.

(d) The husband was to pay the wife a further sum of $515,000 as her half share of the matrimonial assets by ten equal monthly instalments of $51,500 each commencing from 1 October 2006.

(e) The husband and the wife were to have joint custody of the two youngest children of the marriage, viz A and B, while the husband was to have care and control of B until she completed her “O” level examinations.

(f) The husband was to continue to pay for the education and living expenses of B so long as B studied and completed her education in Singapore.

(g) As long as the wife resided in Singapore, she was to have reasonable access to B at all times.

(h) The husband was to continue to pay for A’s educational expenses in the United States until A completed her high school education, such expenses to include school fees and living expenses with the payment to be made direct to A’s bank account. In the event A gained admission to an American university, the husband would continue to pay for her education and living expenses.

(i) The husband was to pay a monthly maintenance sum of $3,600 to the wife to be credited directly into the wife’s POSB account.

(j) The wife was to be paid $50,000 of the husband’s CPF savings in his ordinary account when the husband attained 55 years of age pending which there would be a charge on the husband’s CPF account for the amount.

(k) Each party was to bear its own costs.

The wife, being dissatisfied with my decision, has appealed against all my orders in Civil Appeal No 86 of 2006.

The background

2 The parties were married on 10 July 1982 when the wife was only 19 years old. The couple had four children between 1982 and 1992, the eldest and second child are now 24 and 22 years old respectively and both have completed their tertiary education; the eldest child is already working while the second child is serving his national service. The husband is a director in his family’s fish import and export business (“TFA”) in which business the wife claimed she has helped since 1984. The wife also helped to run another family business of the husband (“SAN”).

3 By 1985, the two businesses were not doing well so the wife started (with the husband’s sister) a florist shop, which business was eventually wound up in the late 1980s (due to mismanagement by the wife according to the husband).

4 At the husband’s behest, the wife registered in or about 1986 a wholesale business (“EAF”) to which she added the husband as a partner in the early 1990s. (The husband complained that the wife disobeyed his instructions which were to register the business for him with him as the sole-proprietor.)

5 In 1994, the husband and his family encountered problems in running TFA. Consequently, the husband started another company called TFI of which he became managing director while the wife was made a director on 1 January 1997. The wife was given 10% of the shareholdings in the company. She alleged the husband forced her to give up her shares which were transferred to the eldest child in March 2004. The wife also claimed she was never paid director’s fees up to the time she was forced to resign from the company on 30 November 2004. The husband disputed her resignation, claiming the wife left the company of her own accord and he further alleged that she was too lazy to work. The wife deposed she did not look for other employment after her resignation. She felt that at 42 years of age and with her qualifications (“O” level certificate) she would not be able to secure another job. Instead, she decided to devote her time to looking after A and B.

6 When she started working in TFA in 1984, the wife said she was paid $300 per month. When she started working in TFI in 1994, her salary was $2,500 per month which sum was gradually increased until it reached $2,800 around 2003. The husband disputed the figure of $2,800, claiming the wife’s last drawn net salary was $2,240.

7 The wife deposed to a comprehensive list (numbering 13 items) of her duties in EAF and TFI which included managing the accounts. This claim was disputed by the husband who said he had accounts staff to do the work. The husband also allegedly expected her to liaise with customers and to attend to their requirements and proposals. The wife was required to accompany the husband on business trips to help build good commercial relationships. However, since the divorce, the husband had not asked her to go on such trips.

8 The wife claimed the business of TFI prospered but the husband would or did not declare the profits he made therefrom. Instead, he used the profits to invest in foreign currencies and to make other investments. She was unaware of his investments until she chanced upon documents in June/July 2004, which revealed that the husband’s cash and time deposits with banks (in local and foreign currencies) totalled $5,065,299.29.

The wife’s assets, liabilities and expenses

9 In her first affidavit of means filed on 14 July 2005, the wife deposed she had the following assets:

(a) cash in five bank accounts (three current and two fixed deposits) amounting to $22,500.80;

(b) CPF savings of $49,354.41, $30,500 and $24,067.54 in her ordinary, medisave and special accounts respectively;

(c) joint owner with the husband of the Property for which she had utilised a principal sum of $94,200.00 from her CPF savings (with accrued interest of $26,967.00 as of 9 July 2005) towards its purchase.

The wife’s liabilities were essentially credit card expenses, which sums were negligible.

10 The wife was the assured under four insurance policies of $50,000 value each which she had effected on the lives of her four children and for which she said she paid premiums totalling $250 per month.

11 The wife listed her monthly expenses as $8,395. The figure comprised of household expenses of $3,345 (food, maid and foreign domestic worker’s levy, utilities, telephone/mobile telephone, Internet charges and groceries), $3,650 for her personal expenses (petrol, car park fees, maintenance of car, bodyline slimming course, clothes/shoes/accessories, cosmetics, hair/manicure/pedicure, entertainment, gifts (weddings/birthdays), $200 for medical expenses, $1,000 for overseas travel and $200 for her parents’ pocket money.

12 The wife justified her high expenditure on the basis that throughout her marriage, she was used to eating high quality restaurant food, for which on the average she spent $30 to $50 per meal once a week. She spent on average $100 on petrol every five days and was accustomed to shopping regularly, spending on average $800 per month on branded goods. She incurred car parking fees of $150 at hotels and restaurants that she frequented. Further, the wife claimed, she had spent $3,000 on one year’s bodyline slimming course for which she attended at least one session every week. The wife deposed she had her own circle of female friends with whom she spent one to two evenings every week at coffee clubs; she also went to the cinemas regularly.

13 As she wanted B to join A to study in the United States, the wife deposed she would be travelling more frequently to America and required on average $12,000 a year for airfare alone. After the Property was sold (which was one of her prayers), she would not be buying an alternative property immediately but would live in the United States while her children studied there. She would therefore need US$2,000 per month to rent accommodation for the period A and B studied there, which she estimated to be seven to eight years in the case of B.

14 In addition, the wife wanted $32,576.44 or US$19,276 and $26,801 or US$15,859 as monthly maintenance sums for A (aged 17) and B (aged 14) respectively. She claimed that the husband had agreed to allow the two daughters to further their studies in the United States to which intent and purpose she had taken them to California in May 2005 (for a month), with the husband’s blessings, to look at schools there.

15 The wife deposed that the couple had “upgraded” from an executive Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat at Pasir Ris to a terrace house at Elias Road (“the Elias Road property”) before buying the Property. She claimed that the husband made a net profit of $100,000 when the HDB flat was sold and another $300,000 profit when the Elias Road property was sold for $1m in 1996/97. She received no share of the profits despite the fact that she had used her CPF savings for both the HDB flat and the Elias Road property. The husband used first the profits from the HDB flat to pay for the Elias Road property and later the $300,000 from the Elias Road property to pay for the Property in 1993 when it was purchased for $1.31m. In her third affidavit filed herein, the wife demanded that the husband account for the profits he made from selling the HDB flat and the Elias Road property.

16 The wife claimed 50% of all the husband’s assets, including the car and another Mercedes Benz, the businesses of EAF and TFI as well as two units of industrial...