TDU v TDV
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Janice Chia |
Judgment Date | 13 April 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 33 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 33 |
Docket Number | Divorce Court Petition No 1100 of 2008 |
Hearing Date | 09 February 2015 |
Published date | 16 July 2016 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lim Poh Choo (Alan Shankar & Lim LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Lim Huat Sing Julian Sebastian (JLIM Law Corporation) |
Subject Matter | Whether there has been material change in circumstances to justify variation of maintenance - Sections 118 and 72 of Women's Charter |
Introduction
This is an appeal against my decision in dismissing the Defendant’s summons for a downward variation of maintenance for the child and upward variation of maintenance for the Defendant. For a complete picture, the brief chronology of events is set out below.
My orders
At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed the Defendant’s summons in totality. I also ordered that each party bear their own costs of this application. The Defendant, being dissatisfied with my orders, has filed a Notice of Appeal. I now give my grounds for my decision.
Related proceedings
Apart from the applications mentioned above, the Plaintiff had also filed a separate summons whereby he sought to recover the shortfall in his share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial flat. I dealt with all 3 applications together. In view of my orders above, I ordered that the Defendant pays the Plaintiff arrears of $14,100 in monthly instalments of $100. I also granted the Plaintiff’s application in respect of his application to recover the shortfall in his share of the sale proceeds. There is no appeal filed against my orders for the other 2 summons. Therefore I will not be addressing these applications in my grounds.
The applicable law
Prior to delving into the facts of the case, it is necessary to set out the applicable law on the Court’s power to vary an order of court for maintenance for wife and child. The Court’s power to vary an ancillary order for child maintenance is found in section 127 read with section 72 of the Women’s Charter, whereas section 118 of the Women’s Charter empowers the Court to vary an ancillary order for wife maintenance. Both provisions are reproduced here as follows:
72(1) On the application of any person receiving or ordered to pay a monthly allowance under this Part and on proof of a change in the circumstances of that person, his wife or child, or for other good cause being shown to the satisfaction of the court, the court by which the order was made may rescind the order or may vary as it thinks fit.
118. The Court may at any time vary or rescind any subsisting order for maintenance, whether secured or unsecured, on the application of the person in whose favour or of the person against whom the order was made, or, in respect of secured maintenance, of the legal personal representatives of the latter, where it is satisfied that the order was based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact of where there has been any material change in the circumstances.
The affidavits
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Defendant’s position
Briefly, the basis of the Defendant’s claim that there has been material change in circumstances is as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Plaintiff’s
...To continue reading
Request your trial-
ATS v ATT
...with the outcome of court proceedings. On this point, the comments of two District Judges are apposite. The first case is TDU v TDV [2015] SGFC 33 where the District Judge rejected the argument that evidence of changes in circumstances prior to the order sought to be varied by the applicant......