Soh Seng Hwee v Paw Ling Chiang Lina

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li JC
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 149
• Date: 25 October 2002
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 56 of 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Leong Kwang Ian (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 149
• Defendant Counsel: Jason Toh (Rayney Wong & Eric Ng)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 304(b),Culpable homicide not amounting to murder,Mitigation,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Accused's previous convictions not related,Alleged provocation

JUDGMENT Cur Adv Vult GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. Soh Seng Hwee and Paw Ling Chiang Lina were at one time husband and wife. On 16 September 1992, a Decree Nisi was granted to dissolve the marriage. I understand that a Decree Absolute was made subsequently. However, for easy reference, I will refer to Mr Soh as ‘the Husband’ and Mdm Paw as ‘the Wife’.

2. The parties had entered into a Deed of Settlement dated 5 February 1988 i.e before the Decree Nisi was granted.

3. When the ancillaries came up for hearing, Judith Prakash JC (as she then was) made an order, inter alia, that the Husband pay the Wife maintenance of $5,000 per month in accordance with Clause 2(1) and (2) of the Deed. This was on 29 July 1993.

4. In 1996, the Husband made an application to court. One of the reliefs he sought was to reduce the maintenance to be paid to the Wife. On 10 April 1996, Justice T S Sinnathuray decided that there be no variation of the maintenance.

5. The Husband has been in default from time to time in paying maintenance to the Wife.

6. On 27 November 2001, the Wife applied by way of Summons-in-Chambers No 602678 of 2001 for a lump sum maintenance instead. In her first affidavit filed on 27 November 2001, she said there were material changes in circumstances. In summary, she alleged her medical expenses had increased and this caused her monthly expenses to increase. She also alleged that the income of the Husband, who is a medical practitioner, had increased. She based this on a private investigator’s report of the alleged number of patients being seen by the Husband in late 1999. She asked for a lump sum of at least $350,000.

7. In her second affidavit filed on 17 April 2002, she said that her application for a lump sum was prompted by the Husband’s irregular payments. She also elaborated that she was 66 years old and the $350,000 was less than the aggregate of six years’ monthly maintenance at $5,000 per month.

8. The Husband in turn filed an application by way of Summons-in-Chambers No 600255 of 2002. In it, he sought again a reduction of the maintenance to be paid to the Wife. He asked that it be reduced from $5,000 to $1,000 per month. His alternative prayer was for a lump sum maintenance to be paid.

9. In his affidavit, he said that he was 68 years old. In summary, he listed various illness he was suffering from and asserted he could stop work at any time. He also alleged that, contrary to the Wife’s assertion, the income...