TMG v TMH

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Keen Onn
• Judgment Date: 22 March 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGFC 15
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No 1391 of 2012
• Published date: 05 April 2016
• Year: 2016
• Hearing Date: 20 May 2015,29 September 2015,22 July 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michelle Elizabeth Woodworth with Yeo Hui Qin, Audris (RHT Law Taylor Wessing LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Soo Chih (Ho Wong Law Practice LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Maintenance,child
• Citation: [2016] SGFC 15

District Judge Wong Keen Onn: Introduction

This is an appeal by the Defendant husband against part of my decision on the maintenance for the child of the marriage.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant were married on 22 September 2002. There is one child of the marriage, K ("K"), (daughter, born on xxx), now aged 9 years. The Plaintiff is 44 years old and now works as a partner at a consultancy firm. The Defendant is 40 years of age and works as a supervisor. On 23 March 2012, the Plaintiff commenced divorce proceedings against the Defendant on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down as a result of the Defendant’s unreasonable behaviour. The Defendant filed his Defence and Counterclaim on 13 April 2012 citing the Plaintiff’s unreasonable behaviour. Interim judgment was granted on an uncontested basis on 27 August 2012 based on both the Plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim and the Defendant’s amended Counterclaim. The ancillary matters were then adjourned to Chambers.

The Ancillary Orders

In respect of the ancillary matters, the parties filed numerous affidavits in this case and mutually agreed to rely only on the Ancillary affidavits but not to refer to the affidavits filed pursuant to the various summons (see Notes of Evidence at pages 3 to 6). Altogether, the Plaintiff filed 3 ancillary affidavits and 9 other Affidavits and 2 written submissions (PS-1 and PS-2) for the hearing on the ancillary matters. The Defendant filed 4 ancillary affidavits and 3 other Affidavits and 3 written submissions (DS-1, DS-2 and DS-3)ⁱ.

Both parties had earlier entered into a Consent Order of Court dated 8 January 2015 on the joint custody of the child of the marriage with care and control of the child to the Plaintiff wife and access arrangements for the Defendant. The remaining ancillary matters came before me for hearing. The Plaintiff was granted leave in summons xxx/2015 to file an additional affidavit from her mother Mdm S (P-13)ⁱⁱ. After reading the affidavits and hearing the evidence and the submissions from both counsel, I made the following ancillary order:

“It is ordered that: (1) In full and final division of matrimonial assets, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant a sum of $22,000.00. (2) Save as above, the parties are to retain their assets in their respective sole names. (3) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a nominal maintenance of $1.00 per month with effect from 29 September 2015 and thereafter on the 29th day of each subsequent month. Payment shall be made into the Plaintiff’s designated bank account, i.e. POSBkids Trust Account No. xxx. (4) The Defendant shall pay a sum of $900.00 as monthly maintenance for the child of the marriage with effect from 29 September 2015 and thereafter on the 29th day of each subsequent month. Payment shall be made into the Plaintiff’s designated bank account, i.e. POSBkids Trust Account No. xxx. (5) The Registrar of the Family Justice Courts, Singapore under section 31 of the Family Justice Act 2014 is empowered to execute, sign or endorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this Order on behalf of either party, should either party fail to do so within seven (7) days of the written request being made to the party. (6) There shall be no order as to costs. (7) There shall be liberty to apply

The brief points for my decision on division of assets and maintenance are stated at pages 26 to 40 of the Notes of Evidence when the order was made. I had earlier indicated that the Court will elaborate on the reasons upon an appeal. The Defendant husband has appealed against part of my decision, namely, the maintenance for the child. I now set out the full reasons for my decision in this issue under appeal.

Maintenance for the Child

I shall first summarise the parties’ positions in relating to their proposal for maintenance of their 9 year old daughter.

Plaintiff (Wife) position

The Plaintiff Wife estimated that her child’s current expenses in year 2015 were $1,761.00 per month and sought, inter alia, an order for the Defendant husband to pay a monthly maintenance of S$1,000.00 for K (“K”), now 9 years of ageⁱⁱⁱ. She said that since April 2012, the Defendant has only been contributing a sum of $450 per month as interim maintenance for the child^iv.

The Plaintiff said that she currently worked as a partner at a travel agency with a gross salary of $3,500.00 per month. She said her monthly take-home salary was $2,791 as at 29 December 2014 (based on Plaintiff’s payslips for October to December 2014 and the IRAS Notice of Assessment for 2013 to 2014)^v. She denied that she had other income and said that the various withdrawals and deposits in her bank accounts were not income but that these monies were either loans to her or were cheque payments paid to her brother’s business from her brother’s business contacts or friends in the travel business that were paid into her personal bank account in order to save on bank charges. The Plaintiff would then reimburse these monies to her brother, Y. As for her credit card expenses, she explained that the higher expenses arose from her habit of settling the bills by paying first for the expenses for the outings with friends and then collect reimbursements from her friends^vi. The Plaintiff submitted that proposed monthly contribution of $1,000 would amount to about 57 % of the Child’s total estimated monthly expenses. The Plaintiff submitted that this would be equitable as the Defendant husband earned much more than the Plaintiff (namely, the Defendant husband’s income of $7,488 was about 73 % of their combined take home salary of $10,279) while Plaintiff wife’s income of $2,791 amounted to 27 % respectively)^vii.

As for the Plaintiff’s own monthly personal expenses, Plaintiff’s counsel clarified that it was now lower and the total figure should be $2,364.92 instead of the figure of $2,805.47 in the written submission (Exhibit PS-1). Plaintiff counsel later clarified that the figure for the Health Shield Gold Elite Policy premiums should be $53.25 per month instead of $35.32 (an increase of $17.930, thus giving her a total monthly expense of $2,382.88 per month. As for groceries that amounted to $400 per month (under “household expenses”), counsel for the Plaintiff clarified that this sum was incurred for the child, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s mother and the domestic helper (maid). Plaintiff’s counsel submit that if the Court was minded to consider nominal maintenance for the wife, then the Court should include a portion of the expenses for groceries and the domestic helper towards the child’s expenses and order the Defendant to pay all of the child’s expenses^viii.

Defendant’s (Husband’s) position

The Defendant husband estimated the current child’s monthly expenses to be in the region of $910.42 and he was only prepared to pay $450 per month as maintenance for the child^ix. The Defendant claimed that he was earning a monthly take home pay of $4,688 and that his expenses amounted to $5,086.54 a month^x. He claimed he had been spending $265.66 a month in year 2012 during his weekly Saturday access with the child for the costs of meals with her and bringing her to places of interest like parks, zoo, Science Centre and at Sentosa^xi. He agreed that during the marriage they had employed a domestic helper who helped to take care of the child and these expenses ($450 monthly for domestic helper’s salary, $170 monthly for the domestic helper’s levy and $4.45 monthly for domestic helper’s medical check-up fee) were paid from the joint bank account^xii He disputed the Plaintiff’s figure of $1,761 a month for the child expenses and initially suggested it was only $761.89 a month before settling for a figure of about $910^xiii.

When asked for the basis of the Defendant’s estimate for the child’s piano class of $144.50, the Defendant’s counsel said she was not sure and said it was prepared by the Defendant’s previous solicitor. The Defendant maintained that the cost of food for the child was about $82.78 per month or $2.50 per day as compared to the amount of $25 per day for his (Defendant’s) daily food expenses. The Defendant urged the court to use the Plaintiff’s previous salary of $4,699 a month for working out the Plaintiff’s share of the child expenses and submitted that he should only bear half of the child expenses.

Child’s reasonable expenses

By virtue of section 127 of the Women’s Charter, the Court may order the non-custodial parent (in this case the Defendant husband) to pay the Plaintiff wife an amount towards the maintenance of a child of the marriage. In determining the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife by the husband for the maintenance of the child, the court will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the matters listed in section 69(4) of the Women’s Charter. Section 69(4) of the Women’s Charter goes on to provide a list of non-exhaustive considerations that a court should take into account including, amongst other things, the financial needs of the child, the standard of living enjoyed by the child as well as the manner in which the child was being, and in which the parties to the marriage had expected him or her to be, educated or trained.

In assessing the child’s reasonable expenses in this case, I allowed the costs of tuition for 3 subjects (English, Mathematics and Chinese language) and piano lessons as there was supporting documentary evidence to show that the parties had been sending the child for such enrichment classes during the marriage. I also allowed for the transport bus fees, and premiums for health insurance for the daughter. As the parties had hired a domestic helper to do household chores and take care of the child during the marriage, I included about one-third (1/3) of the domestic helper’s salary and levy as reasonable expenses incurred because the total costs ought to be...