TGL v TGM
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Masayu Norashikin |
Judgment Date | 16 October 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 132 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 132 |
Docket Number | Divorce No. 5270 of 2013 |
Hearing Date | 28 May 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Patrick Fernandez (I.R.B Law LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Arul Suppiah (APL Law Corporation) |
Subject Matter | Family Law,custody, care and control, and access,division of matrimonial assets,transfer of CPF monies,no maintenance for wife and children in lieu of division |
Published date | 28 October 2015 |
Parties were married in May 1999. There are two children to the marriage who were aged 14 and 12 years at the time of the hearing before me.
The wife and children moved out of the matrimonial home in February 2013. She filed for divorce in October 2013. On 5 August 2014, a Maintenance Order was made in separate proceedings for the Defendant husband to pay the Plaintiff wife $600 per month as maintenance for the two children.
Interim Judgment was granted in October 2014 on both the Plaintiff’s claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim. Both parties relied on the fact that the other party had behaved in such a way that they could not reasonably be expected to live with him/her.
The Plaintiff is 45 years old. She is a xx and earns a monthly take home income of $1,311.50. The Defendant is 47 years old and is unemployed. He is an undischarged bankrupt and was legally aided in these proceedings. He appeared to have various medical ailments and his medical expenses are paid through Comcare and Medisave.
I heard the ancillary matters and made the following orders on 28 May 2015.
The Defendant husband appealed against my orders on the division of matrimonial assets. I set out below the reasons for my decision on these orders. I shall refer to the Plaintiff as the Wife, and the Defendant as the Husband.
Pool of matrimonial assets
The matrimonial assets were undisputed and comprised the following.
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Parties agreed that they would each retain their own assets.
Parties’ direct contributions through CPF for the Matrimonial Flat were in the proportion of 10% by the Wife and 90% by the Husband. I have taken only the respective principal amounts withdrawn from the accounts.
| | |
| | |
| | |
Wife’s case
The Wife asked for the Matrimonial Flat to be sold, and that at least 40% of the nett sale proceeds be given to her.
In addition, she asked that lump sum maintenance be ordered for her and the children. Under the Maintenance Order, the Husband was to pay $300 per child. For the purposes of lump sum maintenance, the Wife proposed $200 per month instead, calculated up to the time each child would reach 21 years of age. This totalled $17,600 for the first child, and $21,600 for the second child. As for herself, she asked for lump maintenance of $36,000, calculated based on $100 per month over a multiplier of 30 years. The multiplier was calculated based on the general life-expectancy of women in Singapore being 75 years old, less the Wife’s age of 45 years. The total amount of lump sum maintenance for the Wife and two children was therefore $75,200.
The reasons she asked for lump sum instead of monthly maintenance were threefold.
The Wife said she has been suffering from eczema since December 2013 and requires medicine whenever there is a flare-up of the condition. She was previously hospitalised for eight days for inflammation of the kidneys and requires lifetime medication to manage the condition.
The Wife’s claim of her and the children’s monthly expenses is set out in the table below. I am of the view that the amounts are mostly reasonable, with possibly some adjustments to the non-essential items such as mobile phone, enrichment, clothing and entertainment.
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The Wife said she paid about $5,000 for home furniture, fittings and appliances.
She claimed that the Husband’s business failed sometime at the end of 2002 and he incurred losses of almost $50,000 borrowed using his credit cards. He then did not work for 9 months. She had to pawn her jewellery and work long hours to earn extra money to pay for the household and children’s expenses. The Husband found work at the end of 2003 but left the job in mid-2012.
The family had employed a maid from May 2003 to November 2012. The Wife said she and the Husband shared the monthly salary of $350 and levy of $150 equally. She also said that when the Husband was working, they shared all household and children’s expenses equally.
The Wife claimed that the flat was rented out from June 2013 to June 2014 for $2,700 a month, earning a rental income of $32,400. She said the Husband never gave her any part of the rental proceeds,...
To continue reading
Request your trial