Teo Choo Eng v Lee Tai Keng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jeffrey Sim Mong Heng
• Judgment Date: 03 May 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 99
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 16 June 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Jee Ming and Rahayu (Tan Jee Ming and Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Foo Siew Fong (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Divorce,Ancillary matters,Division of matrimonial assets,Maintenance for wife
• Citation: [2005] SGDC 99

3 May 2005 Judgment reserved.

District Judge Jeffrey Sim:

1 The petitioner (wife) in these proceedings filed a petition on 10 May 2002 to dissolve the marriage between her and the respondent (husband) on the ground that the parties had lived apart since 1982, when the wife left the matrimonial home.

2 According to the wife, sometime in 1963, a ceremony of marriage was celebrated between her and the husband in Singapore according to Chinese customary rites, and the marriage is deemed to be registered under the provisions of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353). The husband, however, denied that he and the wife were ever legally married and filed an Answer to deny the marriage. However, he subsequently did not contest the petition for divorce and on 13 December 2002, a decree nisi was granted dissolving the marriage.

3 The parties have two sons, aged about 41 and 34 respectively. As the marriage was never in fact registered and, according to the husband, the parties were never legally married, the husband had in 1992 married another woman and has three children from this marriage, aged about 11, 10 and 7 respectively.

4 The ancillary matters in respect of the division of matrimonial property and maintenance for the wife came before me and I made the following orders:

(a) there be no order on division of the matrimonial assets;

(b) the husband is to pay the wife a lump sum maintenance of $8,000;

(c) there be no order as to costs.

The wife has appealed against my orders and I now give my grounds.

The wife’s case

5 The wife is about 59 years of age. She said in her affidavits that she has up to primary school education and has been unemployed since 2001. She used to work as a food court assistant drawing a salary of about $700 per month. She stopped working on her doctor’s advice. She had been suffering from cataract, heart, hand and nerve problems.

6 According to the wife, the husband failed to maintain her and the children throughout the marriage and she had to use her own earnings and savings to pay for the household and children’s expenses. The husband even pawned her wedding jewellery. She applied for a maintenance order from the court when the children were very young. She said that she could not remember the year that she applied for the maintenance. She said that she attended to all the household chores and looked after the children.

7 The wife said that before she and the husband married, the husband was working at a bakery shop for five years earning about $180 per month. Subsequently, he worked as a bread packer for about ten years earning about $100 per month. He then started his chicken rice business and has been very successful in the business.

8 According to the wife, the husband first helped out at her father’s chicken rice business. Her father transferred the chicken rice business to him but since the husband also opened a vegetable rice stall at Changi Airport, the father’s chicken rice business was transferred to the wife. Subsequently, the wife’s brother took over the father’s business. The brother gave the husband $5,000 and the wife contributed $6,000 towards the husband’s business at Changi Airport. The wife worked at her father’s food stall and at the Changi Airport food stall during that time. Her mother helped look after the children while she was at work.

9 According to the wife, the husband then opened a children rice stall at Jalan Besar. He took about $4,000 from the wife. When he sold the business, he did not give the wife any money. Subsequently, he opened many chicken rice outlets under the name Five Star Chicken Rice and Five Star Hainanese Chicken Rice Restaurant.

10 The parties used to own a matrimonial flat at Block 131 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 #02-1613 Singapore 560131 (‘the previous matrimonial flat’). The flat was purchased in their joint names from the Housing and Development Board (‘HDB’) in 1978 for $20,400. The wife said that she alone contributed towards the initial capital payment by paying about $2,000 to $3,000 from her father. The monthly loan instalments were paid using the proceeds from her father’s chicken rice stall. The wife said that she also paid for all the renovations which amounted to about $10,000, as well as the utilities and telephone bills, conservancy charges, property tax and household necessities.

11 The wife said that she moved out of the previous matrimonial flat in 1980 to stay with her relatives. According to her, the husband wanted a divorce but she refused. The husband was living at the previous matrimonial flat with his girlfriend whom he subsequently married in 1992. According to the wife, the parties’ two sons continued to stay with the husband between 1980 and 1990 and also helped him in his chicken rice business. They left him subsequently because he would not change his habits with regard to women.

12 The previous matrimonial flat was sold around 1990 or 1991 and the sale proceeds was $72,000. The wife said that she did not receive a single cent from the sale proceeds. She said that she agreed to sell the flat because the husband said that he would get a bigger flat at Pasir Ris and the family could live together again.

13 The wife claimed a lump-sum maintenance of $240,000 from the husband for herself. She said that her monthly expenses came up to about $2,220, made up as follows:

(a) Rental	$800
(b) Food	$500
(c) Transport	$150
(d) Insurance	$220
(e) Medical consultation	$200
(f) Medication	$200
(g) Miscellaneous	$150
Total	$2,220

14 The wife said that her siblings and relatives had been helping her pay the monthly rent as well as her other expenses. She had to incur medical bills every month due to her condition. She had undergone a heart operation in 2002 at a cost of about $8,000 which was paid by her relatives and children.

15 The wife said that her elder son had been supporting her financially. She is staying alone at a rented house at Telok Kurau at a monthly rent of $1,730. The tenancy agreement is between the owner and the elder son and the elder son pays the monthly rent.

16 The wife also claimed a 50% share in the husband’s moneys in his Central Provident Fund account, a share in his chicken rice business and his car, and a 50% share in all the other matrimonial assets.

The husband’s case

17 The husband is about 63 years of age. In his affidavits, he said that he has up to primary three education. As mentioned earlier, he denied that the parties were married. He said that he first met the wife at a bar in 1963 where the wife was working as a bar hostess. His mother disapproved of the wife and refused to accept her as a daughter-in-law. He began cohabiting with her in 1963 but due to parental objection, they did not marry.

18 The wife denied that she ever worked as a bar hostess. She said that she met the husband at a cake shop. She said that she was accepted by the husband’s parents, after she became pregnant with the parties’ first child. Both the parties’ families conducted a simple marriage ceremony for them.

19 According to the husband, the wife left the previous matrimonial flat with the two children in 1978 without informing him. In 1979, he received a call from a man identifying himself as Mr Koh. Mr Koh told him that the wife and the two children were staying in his house at 223A Onan Road, and that the younger child was his biological son. The husband was stunned by the revelation and thereafter did not contact the wife and the children.

20 The wife denied that she had any improper relationship with Mr Koh. She said that Mr Koh was the tenant of the house at 322A Onan Road and he sublet it to her. Mr Koh had returned to China many years ago and the wife understood from his relative that he died in China.

21 The husband said that in 1980, the wife took out maintenance proceedings against him and he was ordered to pay monthly maintenance of $120 for the children. A year later, he and the wife entered into an agreement whereby he would transfer his chicken rice stall known as Choon Yuen Chicken Rice Stall at Block 19 Toa Payoh Lorong 7 to her in full and final settlement of his maintenance obligations to her and the children. The wife subsequently withdrew the maintenance proceedings.

22 The wife denied that there was such an agreement. According to her, the Choon Yuen Chicken Rice Stall was financed by her father. The husband wanted to open a stall at Paya Lebar Airport and as it was not possible for one person to hold two hawker stall licences, her father suggested that the husband transfer the chicken rice stall back to her. Her brother was still not experienced enough at that time to take over the stall. So the husband transferred the stall to the wife, who subsequently transferred it to her brother around 1991 to 1993. The wife said that her father had given the husband money to start the stall at Paya Lebar Airport and she had also given him some of her savings.

23 The husband said that he did not maintain the wife as she was herself working and was financially independent. He also never held the view that they were legally married. Furthermore, she did not bother to return to the previous matrimonial flat at night. However, the husband said that he did maintain the two children and paid for the household expenses. He also paid everything for the previous matrimonial flat, including the outgoings, renovations and monthly mortgage instalments. He said that the wife did not make any payments towards the flat at all, although she did do the household chores. He also denied that he borrowed any money from her or pawned any of her wedding jewellery as alleged by her.

24 The husband said that he...