UHK v UHL

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Toh Wee San
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGFC 138
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 21 July 2017,06 September 2017,15 July 2017
• Docket Number: D273 of 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff Counsel (PC): Dew Wong/Low Jian Hui (Messrs Ee Bin and Lau)
• Defendant Counsel: Defendant Counsel (DC): Tang King Kai (Tang & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Ancillary matters, division of assets and maintenance for wife
• Published date: 20 December 2017

District Judge Toh Wee San:

This is an appeal from the wife (W) against part of my decision regarding her maintenance.

Background

This was a short marriage with no children. Parties registered their marriage (ROM) on 11th November 2011 but separated since January 2013. According to the Statement of Particulars which was not disputed, the wife (W) left the husband (H). Parties entered into a deed of separation dated February 2013 (DOS). The DOS provided for W’s monthly maintenance, payable by H. H commenced divorce on 23rd January 2017 on 4 years separation and interim judgement (IJ) was granted March 2017. Parties informed that that they wish to to hold assets in each sole name and/or possession and ask the court to determine the W’s maintenance. They argued that the DOS was binding on parties and can only be varied in accordance with Section 119, Women’s Charter (WC). H further applied for downward variation while W applied for upward variation.

I heard parties and issued my orders. The wife appealed against part of my order which essentially ruled that H shall continue to pay W the monthly maintenance quantum ($ 3K) as agreed before the divorce for a year, and then a 50% reduced monthly maintenance quantum ($1.5K) by another four more months and thereafter no maintenance at all. I provide my reasons for this particular aspect of my decision below and the order read:

“The husband shall pay the wife $3000 monthly maintenance with effect from 1st September 2017 to 30th August 2018, and thereafter $1500 from 1st September 2018 to 31st December 2018. From January 2019, there shall be no maintenance payable to W.”

Party’s Case in brief

Re W’s appeal, the issues were whether the DOS was binding on the court and even if yes, whether I should accede to W’s request to increase the maintenance amount as asked by her. W argued that the DOS was binding on parties and should be given full effect by the court for the following reasons. The DOS was a negotiated agreement made between parties being fully aware that the marriage was slightly over a year old and that W was and is suffering from a serious illness. Clause (c) of the DOS provides that H shall pay W monthly maintenance of $3000 from 15th January 2014 onwards. It was for an indefinite period. The DOS comes under section 119 of the Women’s Charter (WC) and can only be varied if there has been a material change in circumstance. The court in making an assessment for W’s maintenance under section 114 of the WC, is bound by section 119 of the WC. The DOS sought to retain W’s financial position if the marriage had not broken down which was H would have paid her such maintenance sums and the medical expenses. Some cases were cited to show favourable outcomes for W and that the court had either upheld the DOS or made substantial maintenance sums. They were: Quek Lee Tiam v Ho Kim Swee (1995) SGHC 23¹ - to show that notwithstanding no DOS and the marriage being a short one, the High Court awarded the wife a lump sum maintenance of S$1.2 million. Surindar Singh s/o Jaswant Singh v Sita Jaswant Kaur (2014) SGCA 37 - to show that a settlement agreement was binding and could only be discharged or varied with the W’s consent. A separation agreement was made when a marriage had failed and the court would attach significant weight unless there are good reasons to conclude that doing so would effect injustice, though this did not mean that in every case, significant weight...