Ooi Florence v Ng Aik Aaron

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Hamidah Bte Ibrahim
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 24
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 24
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The parties were married on the 4^th January,1985 at the Singapore Registry of Marriages. They have 2 children, a daughter, aged 10 and a son, aged 7.

2. The Petitioner (wife) was granted on the 22^nd of November, 1998 a decree nisi dissolving her marriage on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down in that the parties have been living apart for a period of 3 years and the Respondent (husband) consents to a decree being granted. At the same time, with the agreement of the parties, joint custody of the 2 children was granted to the both of them but with care and control to the wife. Orders as to access, normal as well as during the school holidays, were also provided in the decree nisi. The rest of the ancillaries i.e the questions of maintenance for the wife/children and the division of matrimonial assets were adjourned to chambers.

3. These were heard before me on the 18^th of April,2000. After hearing the parties , I made the following orders:-

1) The Sum of $500,000 to be given to the Petitioner being her share of all matrimonial assets and as lump sum maintenance for her.

2) Respondent is ordered to pay $1,500 per month as maintenance for the 2 children only with effect from 1/04/2000 and thereafter on the 1^st of each month.

3) Payment into a bank account to be designated by the Petitioner.

4) Liberty to apply.

5) No order as to costs.

4. The wife is now appealing against the above orders.

5. After their marriage on the 4^th January,1985 the parties went through a Chinese customary marriage and thereafter lived together as man and wife. Their 2 children were born on 21/12/1989 and 4/2/1993. The husband, who was then in the Armed Forces, was subsequently seconded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was sent to Japan in October, 1993. The wife visited him for about a month in April, 1994. When the husband returned in October,1994, the parties started living separate lives although under the same roof. Subsequently, in November 1997 the wife left to stay with her mother but the children remained in the matrimonial home with their father. Eventually the wife took the children with her and since June 1999 they have been living with her at her mother’s home.

6. I will deal firstly with the division of the matrimonial assets. This comprises the matrimonial home known as No-61, Jalan Tua Kong, a 2 storey semi-detached house. This property had been sold for $1.5 million on the 9/12/99. The only outstanding issue left was as to the division of the proceeds of sale. I was informed that a sum of $771,355.89 representing the nett proceeds is being held by the husband’s solicitors as stakeholders pending the determination of the ancillaries. As a sum of $376,706.80 had been refunded into his CPF account, after the sale, I was of the view that in actuality there was a sum of $1,148,062.69 to be distributed ($771,355.89 plus $376,706.80) between the parties because the sum refunded into the husband’s CPF account should also be taken into account.

7. The history of the purchase of the said matrimonial property is undisputed. Sometime in 1984 the parties bought the property jointly for the sum of $680,000. The husband took a loan of $350,000 from his mother, used $44,000 of his own savings, CPF funds of $40,700 and borrowed $245,300 from Credit POSB in order to finance the said purchase. In addition to these payments, he also borrowed $50,000 from his then employers (SAF) to pay for the renovations. While the wife alleged that she had spent $6,000 as renovations in 1989, I find this hard to believe as no documentary evidence was adduced by her. Furthermore, since the wife said that she borrowed this sum from her mother, she could have easily obtained an...