Shi Kansheng v The Yew Chian

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Suriakumari d/o Sidambaram
• Judgment Date: 03 June 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 21
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 21
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

A. The Facts

1. The parties were married on 18 June 1994 at the Singapore Marriage Registry and have a son, S born on 17 March 1998. The Decree Nisi was granted on 9 July 1999 based on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the unreasonable behaviour of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. The ancillary issues of custody, 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 22 March 2000.

2. After having read the several Affidavits filed by both parties and having heard the submissions of their respective counsel, I made the following orders, namely:

(1) Custody of the child S (m) born on 17.3.98 to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays from 2 pm to 6 pm.

Petitioner is not to bring the child out of Singapore without written consent from the Respondent.

(2) Existing Maintenance Order for $525 per month for the child to continue.

(3) Petitioner to pay maintenance to Respondent in the sum of $1 per month.

(4) The matrimonial flat at [address], to be sold in the open market and upon deduction of the outstanding HDB mortgage loan, reimbursement of the CPF monies utilised by Petitioner and Respondent towards the purchase of the flat including interest to their respective CPF accounts and deduction of the costs and of incidental to the sale, the nett sale proceeds to be divided equally between Petitioner and Respondent .

(5) In respect of the Petitioner’s claim for a share of the sale proceeds of the car SCK 687 A, DBS shares owned by Respondent and the diamond ring, the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the sum of $8075.23 and 2570 DHL.

(6) In respect of Respondent’s claim for a share of the Petitioner’s DBS shares, and the OCBC fixed deposit account No. 554-516-021-501, the Petitioner is to pay Respondent the sum of $18,544.

(7) There be no orders in respect of the jewellery, the Kim Yam Mansion and the Balestier Point Apartment.

3. The Respondent being dissatisfied with the part of the decision in respect of maintenance for the Petitioner and the child, and division of the following matrimonial assets, appeals against those orders, and applies for a further order in respect of access to the child. He wants the following orders:

(a) that he be given access to the child at the void deck of the child’s place of residence;

(b) that there be no order for maintenance of the Petitioner and the child;

(c) that the sale proceeds of the motorcar SCK 687A be divided between the Petitioner and Respondent in the proportion of 90:10 in favour of the Petitioner;

(d) that there be no division of the sale proceeds of the Respondent’s DBS shares;

(e) that the diamond ring be divided in the proportion of 50:50 between the Petitioner and the Respondent;

(f) that there be no order as to the division of the sale proceeds of the Petitioner’s DBS shares and the monies in the OCBC fixed deposit account number 554-516021-501 or the Petitioner not be given any share thereof; and

(g) that he be given 25% of the market value of the Kim Yam Mansion apartment.

This Grounds of Decision will therefore only address the issues raised by the Accused in his appeal.

B. The Findings

(a) Access

4. Having granted the custody of the child S (m) born on 17.3.98, aged 2 years as at the date of the hearing, to the Respondent, I ordered that the Petitioner shall have reasonable access to the child on Saturdays and Sundays from 2 pm to 6 pm. I further ordered that the Petitioner is not to bring the child out of Singapore without written consent from the Respondent. The Petitioner is not appealing against these orders.

5. The Petitioner only applies that there be a further order that his access to the child take place at the void deck of the child’s place of residence. This application by the Petitioner was never raised before me at the hearing. It was only mentioned by the Petitioner’s counsel that the Petitioner would merely be "picking up" the child at the void deck of the Respondent’s home. In the event that the Petitioner now applies for access to take place solely at the void deck of the child’s place of residence, firstly, this fresh application of the Petitioner application should not be made by way of an appeal but by way of summons-in chambers for a variation of the existing access order, and secondly, the court is not in favour of the access to the 2 year old child being held for 4 continuous hours at just the void deck of a Housing and Development Board flat. In view of the length of the period of access, it might benefit the child more if he could be brought out to more interesting places during the access period.

(b) Maintenance of the Petitioner and the child

6. In this case, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances and the arguments and submissions of counsel for both parties, I ordered that the existing Maintenance Order for $525 per month for the child to continue and that the Petitioner pay nominal maintenance to Respondent in the sum of $1 per month. In fact, the Petitioner’s counsel submitted that if the Petitioner is not granted custody, the Petitioner agrees to pay the sum of $525 per month as maintenance for the child as per the then existing maintenance order. The court noted that the Maintenance Order was made on 21 July 1998 in M/S/S 2465/98 that the Petitioner should pay $525/- per month as maintenance for the child with effect from 1 November 1998.

7. Further, on the Respondent’s counsel’s submission that the Respondent agrees that the Petitioner continue to pay the child’s maintenance at $525 per month; as the existing Maintenance Order was made not too long ago and as...