Owyong Min Sin v Ling Siew Kim

CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
JudgeSuriakumari d/o Sidambaram
Judgment Date23 May 2000
Neutral Citation[2000] SGDC 19
Citation[2000] SGDC 19
Published date19 September 2003



A. The Facts

1. The parties were married on 12 November 1984 at the Singapore Marriage Registry and have a daughter, H, born on 31 July 1987. The Decree Nisi was granted on 4 November 1999 based on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour. The ancillary issues of custody, access, maintenance and division of the matrimonial property were adjourned to be heard in chambers. The hearing of these issues came up for hearing before me on 27 March 2000.

2. After having heard the submissions of counsel for both the Petitioner and the Respondent, I made the following orders, namely:

1. By consent, Petitioner to have custody, care and control of the only child of the marriage, with reasonable access to the Respondent,

2. The Respondent to pay $200 per month as maintenance for the child of the marriage with effect from 1 April 2000,

3. The matrimonial flat at [address] be sold in the open market and after deduction of all the costs of and incidental to the sale, the nett sale proceeds be divided in the proportion of 85:15 in favour of the Petitioner and each party is to reimburse his own Central Provident Fund (CPF) account with CPF monies utilized towards the purchase of the flat together with interest. The 85% of the nett sale proceeds awarded to the wife is in respect of her share of the matrimonial flat as well as in full and final settlement of all her claims for maintenance.

3. The Respondent being dissatisfied only with the decision in respect of the matrimonial property and the Petitioner’s maintenance, appeals against that order. He wants the order pertaining to his share stated in the order to be 40% instead 15% and wants there to be no maintenance for the Petitioner. This grounds of decision will therefore only address the issue of the matrimonial property.

4. The matrimonial property in question in this case is a HDB flat at [address]("the flat"). It is a 3 room flat purchased in the joint names of the parties. The counsel for both parties confirmed that the original price of the flat was $37,7000 and that the flat has been fully paid for sometime in or about March 1999. According to the Petitioner, she paid more for the flat from her CPF account. As at 12 January 2000, she had paid a principal sum of $36,504.77 with interest accrued at $15, 983.04 towards the purchase of the flat, that is, a total of $52,487.81. She claimed that the Respondent only paid a minimal amount towards the utilities bill and the conservancy charges. She added that the Respondent was the one who was in any event using the utilities as the child and she spent most of their time at the house of the Petitioner’s sister. The Petitioner also claimed that the Respondent had failed to pay any maintenance all these years and that she was the one who had paid...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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