TDS v TDT
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Cheryl Koh |
Judgment Date | 02 June 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 74 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 74 |
Hearing Date | 13 January 2015,17 February 2015,27 January 2015 |
Published date | 06 January 2016 |
Docket Number | Divorce Suit. No. 966 of 2011/J, Summons No. 5526/2014, District Court Appeal No. 27/2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr. Tan Kim Chiang (Angela Wong & Co) - |
Defendant Counsel | Ms Grace Chacko (Grace Chacko Law Practice) - |
Subject Matter | Family Law - variation of maintenance - s118, Women's Charter |
This is the Defendant’s application to vary the Interim Judgement dated 25 April 2011 (the “
On 17 February 2015, I varied the Interim Judgment such that the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant a sum of $600.00 per month as maintenance of the Child with effect from 28 February 2015 and thereafter on the last day of each month. In addition, I ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant a sum of $300.00 for the Child’s year-end expenses with effect from 15 December 2015 and thereafter on the 15th day of December each year.
The Defendant has filed an appeal against the whole of my orders.
Background FactsOn 1 March 2011, the Plaintiff filed for divorce based on the Defendant’s unreasonable behaviour.
On 25 April 2011, parties recorded the following consent orders in the Interim Judgment:-
As such, under the Interim Judgment, the Plaintiff was to have care and control of both children with reasonable access to the Defendant. No specific provision was made for the maintenance of both children.
The Interim Judgment was made final on or around 2 August 2011. The Defendant re-married in or around September 20112 whilst the Plaintiff re-married in or around 20123. The Defendant claimed that notwithstanding the Interim Judgment which gave the Plaintiff care and control of the children, the children had remained with her. However, after the Plaintiff discovered that she had re-married in or around July 2012, he forced the children to live with him. The Defendant’s mother then also stayed with the Plaintiff to help look after the children. However, in or around July 2013, the Plaintiff forced the Defendant’s mother to move out of his home due to his new girlfriend and the Child moved back with the Defendant whilst the elder child C remained with the Plaintiff4.
The Plaintiff had a different version of events. He claimed that after the Interim Judgment, the children had remained with him5. The Defendant further continued to go to his home and her mother continued to live in his home. However, in or around June 2013, after he had found out that the Plaintiff had re-married, he chased the Defendant’s mother away. The Defendant then retaliated by unilaterally taking the Child away whilst he was at work6.
What is not in dispute is that in or around July 2013, the Child had left the Plaintiff’s home and began to live with the Defendant.
On 17 April 2014, the Defendant filed two applications regarding custody of the Child (
On 28 October 2014, after mediation, parties recorded the following consent orders before the learned District Judge Mr. Wong Sheng Kwai in Summons Entered No. 5490/2014:
It is not disputed that there has been a material change in circumstances since the Interim Judgment justifying a variation of the same. Under the Interim Judgment, the Plaintiff had sole care and control of both children and no specific provision was made for the maintenance of the children. However, following the consent orders made in Summons Entered No. 5490/2014, parties now have shared care and control of both children. Further, the elder child C’s principal address would be that of the Plaintiff whilst the Child’s principal address would be that of the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not sought any contribution from the Defendant for the elder child C’s expenses. The Defendant is however seeking contribution from the Plaintiff for the Child’s expenses in the sum of $2,500.00 per month in Summons Entered No. 5526/2014. At the hearing on 13 January 2015, the Plaintiff offered $300.00 per month as maintenance for the Child on a without prejudice basis. The question therefore arises as to whether there ought to be any maintenance payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the Child and if so, the quantum of maintenance that ought to be paid.
Parties have filed the following affidavits in Summons Entered No. 5526/2014:
The Plaintiff claimed to earn a monthly salary of $9,000.00 including $1,000.00 transport allowance7. In this regard, his claim is verified by his latest income revenue statement dated 2 May 2014 showing that his net income after tax deductions was around $7,677.00 per month (total income of $103,824.00 less provident fund/life assurance of $11,700.00, divided by 12 months)8.
The Defendant has outstanding loans of over $100,000.00 of which he claimed to have incurred for the benefit of the family. He also claimed to have expenses of over $8,000.00 per month, including expenses for the elder child C9. It is also noteworthy that he has a new child from his second marriage10. However, whilst the Plaintiff has exhibited documentation evidencing some of his outstanding loans in his 2nd Affidavit (including his car loan), he failed to show when these loans were obtained and how they were disbursed. He also failed to furnish any supporting documentation for his expenses. No disclosure was made of any other assets including his bank accounts. Nonetheless, what is clear is that he is a relatively higher income earner than the Defendant.
On the part of the Defendant, she claimed to be unemployed and hence sought for the Plaintiff to bear all of the Child’s expenses allegedly amounting to $2,500.00 per month. However, I found that the Defendant has not discharged her burden of proof to show that she is currently unemployed or is incapable of working to earn income:
To continue reading
Request your trial