UII v UIJ
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Darryl Soh |
Judgment Date | 08 January 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGFC 1 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Hearing Date | 04 October 2017 |
Docket Number | Divorce 2361 of 2016 |
Plaintiff Counsel | W. K. Fong (M/s W.K. Fong & Co) |
Defendant Counsel | Jamie Neo (M/s Hoh Law Corporation) |
Subject Matter | Family law,Ancillary matters,Division of assets,Wife's maintenance,Children's maintenance |
Published date | 25 January 2018 |
This matter concerns ancillary reliefs arising from divorce proceedings between the Plaintiff-Wife (“the Wife”) and the Defendant-Husband (“the Husband”) (collectively referred to as “the Parties”). The Parties contested the financial aspects relating to the divorce – the division of the matrimonial home and the maintenance for the Wife and the children. The Wife appealed against the orders I made. In these grounds, I explain my decision on those orders in greater detail.
Background FactsThe Parties were married on 28 June 1988 in Malaysia. The Wife is a 49 year-old cleaner earning a monthly salary of $1,000.00. The Husband is a 54 year-old driver and project coordinator earning a monthly salary of $3,050.00. The Parties have two children – a 27 year-old son (“the First Child”) and a 20 year-old daughter (“the Second Child”) (collectively referred to as “the Children”). At the time of the proceedings, only the Second Child was a minor.
The Wife commenced divorce proceedings against the Husband on 17 May 2016 on the grounds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as the Husband had behaved in a way that the Wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Husband. Interim Judgment was granted on an uncontested basis on 30 June 2016. The length of the Parties’ marriage was consequently 28 years.
Issues in Dispute and Decision The Parties were in agreement on the care issues relating to the minor child,
The remaining ancillary issues contested concerned the financial aspects relating to the divorce. Having considered the Parties’ respective submissions and affidavits, I ordered the following:
The Wife appealed against the above orders.
Division of the Matrimonial HomeBy agreement, the only matrimonial asset the Parties submitted to the court for division was their Matrimonial Home. It was a HDB Flat valued at $300,000.00.
Just and Equitable Division of the Matrimonial Pool of Assets Section 112(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Charter”) provides the court with the power when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks
In its decision in
There was no dispute that the marriage...
To continue reading
Request your trial