TEU v TEV

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Colin Tan
• Judgment Date: 02 September 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGFC 115
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Maintenance Summons No 1875 of 2015
• Published date: 26 September 2015
• Year: 2015
• Hearing Date: 02 July 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Irving Choh, Ms Stephanie Looi & Ms Melissa Kor (M/s Optimus Law LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Alyssa Lee & Ms Wong Chai Kin (M/s Alyssa Lee & Co)
• Subject Matter: Family law,maintenance
• Citation: [2015] SGFC 115

District Judge Colin Tan: Introduction

This was an application for variation of maintenance.

The Respondent husband asked that the Complainant wife’s application be dismissed without a hearing.

After hearing the parties on this issue, I did not agree with the Respondent husband’s position and I ordered that the matter was to proceed to hearing. The Respondent husband then filed an appeal, and I now set out herein the grounds of my decision.

Whether the Complainant could apply to vary the earlier maintenance order

The Respondent’s Notice of Appeal stated that the Respondent was appealing against the following: “(1) The “Interim Maintenance Order” No. MO 554/2010 dated 6 July 2009 and issued for Maintenance Summons No. 941/2009 is a valid order, and the Complainant is entitled to apply to vary the said “Interim Maintenance Order” under section 72 of the Women’s Charter.”

It was clear on the face of order MO 554 / 2010 that it was a maintenance order under section 69 of the Women’s Charter, and it was dated 6th July 2009 and signed by District Judge Emily Wilfred.

After hearing both counsel, I was of the view that there was no basis to hold that this Order was not a valid order, and it therefore followed that the Complainant was entitled to file the current application.

Whether the current application was a separate matter from the discovery application in the parties’ divorce proceedings

The Respondent’s Notice of Appeal stated that the Respondent was appealing against the following: “(2) The Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondent in HCF/RAS 19/2015, appealing against the decision made by the District Judge Colin Tan Boon Chwee in respect of the Respondent’s discovery application in Divorce Suit No. 4476/2008 / Summons No. 11406/2014, is a separate matter from Maintenance Summons No. 1875/2015 and there is no duplicity in the proceedings.”

The Respondent’s Counsel argued that there was a “duplicity of proceedings” in the light of appeal no. HCF/RAS 19/20015.

The appeal in question was in respect of a discovery application. The current Maintenance Summons was an application to vary a Maintenance Order.

As such, the two matters were clearly very different matters.

Appeal against my refusal to comment on a separate matter which is currently still pending

The Respondent’s Notice of Appeal stated that the Respondent was appealing against the following: “(3) As to the Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondent in HCF/RAS 25/2015, appealing against the decision made by the...