Rosaline Singh v Jayabalan Samidurai (alias Jerome Jayabalan)

• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 29 December 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 313
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 313
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Teck Hai (Lee T H and Partners)
• Published date: 10 January 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jagji Singh Gill (Gurdip and Gill)
• Date: 29 December 2003
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No 602123 of 2001
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Wife,Family Law,Division,Whether entitled to maintenance,Matrimonial assets,Maintenance,Whether wife entitled to larger share of matrimonial assets

1. The appellant, Madam Rosaline Singh, who divorced the respondent, Mr Jayabalan Samidurai, appealed against the decision of District Judge Tan Peck Cheng regarding the division of their matrimonial assets. I dismissed the appeal and now give the reasons for my decision.

2. The appellant married the respondent on 11 July 1968. She was then 32 years old while the respondent was then 23 years of age. The couple have two children. Their daughter, aged 34 years, and their son, aged 30 years, are married and are living in the United States.

3. After being married for 32 years, the respondent, who was then the Personnel and Administrative Manager of Cathay Pacific Singapore, left the matrimonial home in November 2000. He claimed that he did so because he “feared for his own safety”. On 26 April 2001, he retired and has been unemployed since then. On 20 June 2001, the appellant instituted proceedings to divorce the respondent. She cited the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour as a ground for ending the marriage. Her petition for a divorce was not contested and the parties were divorced on 28 August 2001.

4. The District Judge made the following orders in relation to ancillary matters:

(a) The matrimonial home at Block 725 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 #03-4146 Singapore 560725 shall be sold in the open market and the net proceeds of sale after payment of the costs and expenses of sale shall be divided equally between the Petitioner and Respondent. Each party to reimburse their own CPF account with money utilised for the purchase of the matrimonial flat plus interest, if applicable.

(b) The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner $70,000 being her share of the other matrimonial assets, to be paid out of the Respondent’s share of the net proceeds of the matrimonial flat.

(c) In view of the above there shall be no order as to maintenance for the Petitioner.

(d) Costs to the Petitioner fixed at $3,000, deductible from the Respondent’s share of the net proceeds of the matrimonial flat.

5. The appellant appealed against paragraphs (b) and (c) of the District Judge’s orders, which relate to the division of matrimonial assets other than the matrimonial home and maintenance respectively.

Division of matrimonial assets

6. The appellant was satisfied with having a 50% share of the matrimonial home, which was valued at $350,000. What she was dissatisfied about was that the District Judge awarded her only 35% of the other matrimonial assets. When considering the division of matrimonial assets, one should first refer to s 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353). S 112(1) of the said Charter provides as follows:

The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, to order the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable.

7. S 112(2) of the Women’s Charter adds as follows:

It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1) and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following matters:-

(a) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards acquiring, improving or maintaining the matrimonial assets;

(b) any debt owing or obligation incurred or undertaken by either party for their joint benefit or for the benefit of any child of the marriage;

(c) ….

(d) The extent of the contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family, including looking after the home or caring for the family or any aged or infirm relative or dependant of either party;

(e) ….

(f) ….

(g) The giving of assistance or support by one party to the other party (whether or not of a material kind), including the giving of assistance or support which aids the other party in the carrying on of his or her occupation or business; and

(h) ….

8. S 112 of the Women’s Charter has been considered in innumerable cases. In Lim Choon Lai v Chew Kim Heng [2001] 3 SLR 225, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the division of matrimonial assets is not an exact science and each judge would have his own view as to what would be a just and equitable division in a particular case. In that case, LP Thean JA, who delivered the judgment of the court, likened the process of division of matrimonial assets to that of assessment of damages or losses. He summed up the principles to be borne in mind for the purpose of division of matrimonial property in the following terms at p 231:

In determining a ‘just and equitable’ division of matrimonial assets under s 112(1) of the Women’s Charter, the court must, as...