Ong Kian Chuan v Chua Hong Kian

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Choi Ming
• Judgment Date: 28 March 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 115
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No.590 of 2011
• Published date: 16 May 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 08 January 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Low Wan Kwong [Crossbows LLP]
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Gurdaib Singh s/o Pala Singh [Gurdaib, Cheong & Partners ]
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 115

District Judge Lim Choi Ming: Background to this matter

This is an appeal by both the Plaintiff (“the Husband”) and the Defendant (“the Wife”) against orders made by me on 8 January 2014 in respect of ancillary matters in Divorce Suit No: 590 of 2011 (“the ancillary orders”).

The Husband has appealed against the division of the matrimonial flat where I had divided 55% to him and 45% to the Wife.

The Wife has appealed against my orders on the grant of joint custody and the care of the children to the Wife, the Husband’s terms of access to the children, the grant of maintenance for the Plaintiff and the children of the marriage and the division of the home.

The parties were married on 20 September 1989. The marriage lasted 22 years and there are two children to the marriage, both male, aged 19 years old and 20 years old. The Husband is a 49 year old coach driver who used to own his own fleet of buses while the Wife, also 49 years old, is a sales assistant.

Divorce proceedings

On 7 February 2011, the Husband commenced proceedings to dissolve the marriage with the Wife on the fact that the marriage had broken down irretrievably in that the Wife had behaved in such a way that the Husband could not reasonably be expected to live with him, citing her quarrelsome nature. The Wife counterclaimed that the Husband had also behaved in such a way that she could not live with him on account of a third party relationship.

The Interim Judgment was eventually granted on 25 July 2011 based on both parties’ unreasonable behaviour and parties had agreed that there would be joint custody of the two children of the marriage, with care and control to the Wife and reasonable access to the Husband. The Husband had also agreed to pay the sum of $1,400/month for the two boys and $400/month for the Wife.

However, the Husband applied to reduce the amount to be paid to the family and after the Wife’s enforcement under MSS 99/2011 and his variation to lower the maintenance under MSS 61/2012, parties consented that they would reduce the amount paid to the two boys to $280/month pending the outcome of the ancillaries. The issue of the children’s custody, care and control also came into issue during the ancillaries, and I heard the following in chambers.

Issues at ancillary hearing

The ancillary issues were as follows: The issue of the custody, care and control of, as well as access to the sons. The issue of maintenance for sons. The issue of maintenance for Wife. The issue of the division of the matrimonial home at Blk 389 Tampines Street 32 #06-63 Singapore 520389 (“the Matrimonial Flat”); The issue of the division of other matrimonial assets.

Ancillary Matters

In respect of the outstanding ancillary issues, the parties filed the following:

Husband
P1	Affidavit of Assets and Means filed on 15/9/2011
P2	2nd ancillary Affidavit filed on 24/10/11
P discovery	Affidavit of discovery dated 30/7/12
P3	3rd ancillary Affidavit filed on 8/5/13
P4	4th ancillary Affidavit filed on 7/10/13
P35A	Plaintiff’s Ancillary Matters Fact and Position Sheet filed on 12/8/13
PS	Plaintiff’s Submissions filed on13/8/13
PS-2	Plaintiff’s supplemental Submissions filed on 11/9/2013
PS-3	Plaintiff’s 2nd Submissions filed on 9/10/2013
PS-4	Plaintiff’s 3rd Submissions filed on 13/12/2013
PS-5	Plaintiff’s 4th Submissions filed on 6/1/2013
Wife
D1	Affidavit of Assets and Means filed on 12/9/2011
D2	2nd ancillary affidavit filed on 2/11/11
D3	3rd ancillary affidavit filed on 18/6/2013
D4	4th ancillary affidavit filed on 19/7/13
DW1	Derrick’s Affidavit filed on 8/11/13
DW2	Brandon’s Affidavit filed on 8/11/13
D5	5th ancillary affidavit filed on 26/12/13
DS	Defendant’s Submissions filed on 13/8/2013

The Ancillary Orders

The ancillary matters came on for hearing before me on 11 September 2013, 16 October 2013, 13 November 2013, 13 December 2013 and 8 January 2014. On 8 January 2014, I made the following orders: 1 There shall be joint custody of the 2 children of the marriage, Brandon Ong Jia Wei and Derrick Ong Jia Yu, with care and control to the Defendant. 2 The Plaintiff shall have reasonable access to the said children and shall contact them directly for access. 3 The matrimonial flat shall be sold in the open market at a price equal to or above valuation within 3 months from Final Judgment and the proceeds of sale used to pay for the costs and expense of the sale including agents’ commission. Thereafter the proceeds shall be split into the proportion of 55% to the Plaintiff Husband and 45% to the Defendant Wife in fair and final settlement of the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the Plaintiff. 4 Each party shall from his/her own sale proceeds refund to his/her own CPF account the monies utilized by each for them for the purchase of the Flat into accrued interest. There shall be joint conduct of the sale. 5 The Plaintiff shall from his share of the sale proceeds further pay the sum of $15,000 each to the 2 children of the marriage (ie. $30,000 altogether) being a one-time lump sum maintenance for the children. 6 The Registrar of the Subordinate Courts shall sign the necessary document on behalf of the defaulting party should either of them fail to do so within 14 days of written notice. 7 MSS 99/2011 and MSS 61/2012 is hereby rescinded. 8 Each party shall keep his/her own assets and be responsible for his or her own debts. 9 No order as to costs. 10 Liberty to apply.

Notice of Appeal

The Husband filed an appeal on 21 January 2014 on the issue of the division of the Flat, while the Wife filed an appeal on 21 January 2014 appealing on what appears to be all the orders. Although the Wife did not state what she hoped to achieve in the appeal, I shall deal with the issues which I suspect may not be in contention (eg: custody, care and control) before dealing with the other issues of maintenance and the division of the assets.

Custody, care and control, access for the Husband

I had ordered joint custody of the children to both parties even though the Wife is upset that the Husband has a third party in the marriage, although the Husband has denied that he has done anything wrong in the family.

There is no doubt that the Wife has been the caregiver for the two boys and that the Wife will continue to look after them after the divorce. However, I have left open, both the Husband and the children, that they shall be free to initiate contact with each other in the future and I certainly hope that they will do so. The sons must know that the Husband had provided for them in the past until the breakdown of the marriage. Without the Husband, the sons may not have the opportunity to study up to their secondary school stage.

The Husband must also realise that his actions since he left the family would have severely impacted the lives of his Wife and children, not just financially but also emotionally. The Husband is entitled to his life, but he cannot shirk his responsibility while pursuing his new life.

Maintenance for the Children

The Wife had been a housewife throughout the marriage, although she says that she was a seamstress¹ prior to the Husband founding the bus business. She had asked $1,400/month for the children, which she says she had no choice but to reduce to $280/month as interim maintenance pending the outcome of these proceedings.

The Wife was also asking for the Husband to be responsible for the education of the children as she felt that she had been responsible for them since the Husband left the Flat. The older child was in the Army and would come out soon, while the other child was accepted into the Singapore Management University² and required similarly required funding for his education.

The Husband felt that he had provided for the children as best he could during the time when the children were younger, but felt that he could no longer do so in an infinite capacity. He therefore felt that he could only give $400/month for both the children.

The Husband alleged that he would not have that much money after the sale of the matrimonial Flat, as he had hitherto declared that he did not have enough money even for his daily living expenses. Although the Wife claims that the Husband had hidden much of his assets, she was unable to adduce evidence of such assets and I could not attribute how much of his wealth he had not disclosed when he transferred his sole-proprietorship, KC Transport Service to a third party, Ms Loh Leng Leng.

The Husband has not been paying maintenance for the two children since 2011 after the Interim Judgement. Based on $1,400 per month for the children, the amount that the Husband himself had offered to pay them, I had also estimated that the boys would need at least 2 years to either complete their studies or get an education. An estimate of their total expenses would be as follows:

(a) August 2011 – December 2013 = $1,400 x 29 months	= $40,600
(b) January 2014 – December 2015 = $1,400 x 24 month	= $33,600
Total	= $74,200

The Husband claims he has nothing to pay for the children’s expenses and education. The Wife will have to use the money that she had amassed during the marriage to pay for the children’s education. It is for this reason that I did not ask the Wife to pay any money from the assets in her sole name to the Husband.

I further awarded the two children $15,000 each from the Husband’s share of the sale proceeds of the Flat, making it $30,000 altogether. The younger child had potential to study and he would do well if he studied as he did now. The older son has not found his niche yet, and although the older son said that he would be looking...