TBV v TBW
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Masayu Norashikin |
Judgment Date | 15 April 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 44 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 44 |
Docket Number | Divorce No. 200 of 2014 |
Hearing Date | 10 February 2015,27 November 2014 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ms Tan Gee Tuan (M/s Gee Tuan Tan) |
Defendant Counsel | Ms Anne Wong (M/s Hin Tat Augustine & Partners) |
Subject Matter | Catchwords: "Family law,assisted access at Centre for Family Harmony,nominal maintenance for wife to preserve the wife's right to maintenance if there is change of circumstances" |
Published date | 09 June 2015 |
Parties were married in June 2007. There are 2 children to the marriage, aged 4 and 2 years old at the time of the ancillary matters hearing before me. The Plaintiff was the husband in this case and obtained Interim Judgment on 11 June 2014 dissolving the marriage by reason of the Defendant wife behaving in such a way that the Plaintiff could not be expected to live with her. The marriage had therefore lasted 7 years.
The Plaintiff husband was 36 years old and working as a xxx earning a take-home salary of $2,399. The wife was 34 years old and working as a xxx earning a take-home salary of about $3,784.
At the time of ancillary matter hearing before me, interim orders were in place in respect of the 2 children as follows:-
In addition, I had also heard and decided the wife’s application for maintenance for the (children) which was made by way of a maintenance summons under section 69 of the Women’s Charter. The orders made on 16 October 2014 were:
In making the maintenance orders above, I informed parties that I accepted the wife’s submissions that the husband has the income earning capacity of between $4,000 to $5,000. The husband’s salary in his previous job and his initial salary in his current job were both $5,000 a month. However, he had, in his current job, allegedly suffered a paycut of $1,000 in December 2013, and a further paycut of $1,000 in April 2014. I also informed them that the maintenance amount ordered was 80% of the children’s reasonable expenses of $1,600, excluding the elder child’s school and childcare fees. Parties did not appeal against the maintenance order. In any event, the ancillary matters in the divorce were heard only one month after the maintenance order was made.
Ancillary matters ordersThe ancillary matters were custody, care and control of the children, maintenance for the children and the wife, and the division of matrimonial assets. I heard submissions from parties’ respective counsels on 27 November 2014 and reserved my decision.
On 10 February 2015, I gave the following orders.
I had, in making the orders, also given to the parties brief reasons which I set out below and which I intend to rely on.
“
Brief reasons
Children
Matrimonial flat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UUV v UUU
...the Wife is capable of supporting herself financially and a grant of nominal maintenance would be unnecessary. The Wife relied on TBV v TBW [2015] SGFC 44 (“TBV”) to support her position. In TBV, nominal maintenance was granted to the wife since she was the primary caregiver of two young ch......