THF v THG
Judge | Yarni Loi |
Judgment Date | 30 October 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 127 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 127 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 12 November 2015 |
Docket Number | Divorce No. 612 of 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Gulab Sobhra, and Mr Michael Low (Crossbows LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Koh Tien Hua and Ms Ho Chee Jia (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) |
Subject Matter | Family Law - Ancillaries - Division of assets - Maintenance - Access |
Hearing Date | 14 July 2015,14 August 2015,25 August 2015 |
This is my judgment in respect of ancillary orders made in these divorce proceedings between the Plaintiff-Wife and Defendant-Husband who registered their marriage on 9 June 2000. Interim Judgment for divorce was granted on 14 January 2013 (on the basis of both parties’ unreasonable behaviour) after about 13 years of marriage. The Plaintiff is about 40 years old and the Defendant is 41. They have a daughter aged 11 and a son aged 7 who suffers from autism and has special needs (“
A brief summary of the orders I made in the AM proceedings on 25 August 2015 is as follows:
The Defendant has appealed against certain parts of my decision. I now set out the full reasons behind the AM Orders.
I should mention that after I made the AM Orders, Defendant’s counsel wrote in to inform the court that the order relating to the Simei Flat was unworkable. HDB had informed the Defendant that he could not retain the flat because he was not a Singapore citizen and did not have a family nucleus. Parties therefore attended before me on 29 October 2015 where I substituted the original transfer order relating to the Simei Flat to a sale order, as follows:
Brief background facts“Within 6 months of 29 October 2015, the matrimonial flat situated at xxx (“Simei Flat”) shall be sold in the open market and the net sale proceeds after deducting the outstanding housing loan shall be paid entirely to the Defendant. There shall be no CPF refunds to the Plaintiff. Defendant shall have sole conduct of the sale.”
The Plaintiff is a xxx earning a gross monthly salary of $9750 and take-home salary of $8749. She also used to receive rental from the Simei Flat of about $2600 per month. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff kept all the rental income from the Simei Flat. At the hearing before me, Plaintiff’s counsel informed me that the Plaintiff was in between jobs, but he did not have any details of her new employment.
The Defendant is an Indonesian citizen and Singaporean Permanent Resident. He runs his own business, xxx (“
In the initial years of their marriage, they lived in the Simei Flat. Sometime in or around 2003, the Defendant left the Simei Flat but parties reconciled and he returned shortly after their first child was born in 2004. In 2008, their second child was born. For a period of time from around September 2007 to around 2010, the Plaintiff stopped work to look after the Children.
In 2008, after their second child was born, parties purchased a private apartment, namely, the Marine Parade Property. This was their matrimonial home from about December 2008/2009 onwards.
However, their relationship was marked by strife, with the Plaintiff accusing the Defendant of infidelity and violence; and the Defendant accusing the Plaintiff of being abusive and emotionally unstable.
In 2011, the Plaintiff commenced MSS 6320/2011 to claim maintenance for herself and the Children. At that time, they were all still living under the same roof but the Defendant claims he found the situation unbearable because of the Plaintiff’s hostility towards him. Eventually, on or about 26 Jan 2012, parties entered into a Consent Order under which the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a total of $3,500 (being $2000 in cash and $1500 from the rental proceeds of the Simei Flat) (“
Sometime in 2012, the Defendant moved out of the Marine Parade Property and rented his own studio apartment. He kept his residential address confidential. He did not want the Plaintiff to know his address as he was worried she may make a scene at his place and confront him over allegations of adultery. As such, access sessions for the children took place outside his residence.
On 10 February 2012, the Plaintiff commenced divorce proceedings. She also obtained an interim injunction by way of Order of Court dated 20 February 2012 against the Defendant to prevent him from disposing of his interest in both matrimonial properties pending the hearing of the ancillary matters.
Both parties also filed several Court applications regarding access, resulting in Consent Order of Court dated 30 November 2012 specifying access terms, as varied and superseded by Order of Court dated 30 July 2014 pursuant to which the Defendant was given access to the children every Sunday from 9am to 2pm and daily telephone access (“
Under section 112(1) of the Women’s Charter, the Court has the power to order a division or sale of matrimonial assets as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. In exercising its powers, the court is to adopt a broad-brush approach and “it is essential that courts resist the temptation to lapse into a minute scrutiny of the conduct and efforts of both spouses” (
In respect of
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UDA v UDB and another
...Charter to determine if the asset is a matrimonial asset and if so how it should be divided. In support of her position, the intervener cited THF v THG [2015] SGFC 127 (“THF”), decided by a judge of the Family Court. In THF, the defendant husband had argued that his sister had a beneficial ......
-
UAX v UAY
...one of the parties to the marriage in a case under section 112 of the Women’s Charter, it is pertinent to refer to the case of THF v THG [2015] SGFC 127 (“THF v THG”). In that case, the Defendant husband sought to exclude his share in a property from division by claiming that his sister had......