UM v UN

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jeffrey Sim Mong Heng
• Judgment Date: 29 August 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 240
• Published date: 24 October 2007
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Petitioner in person
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Siew Kim and Elena Yip (Lee & Lee)

[EDITORIAL NOTE: The details of this judgment have been changed to comply with the Children and Young Persons Act and/or the Women's Charter]

29 August 2007 Judgment reserved.

District Judge Jeffrey Sim:

1 The parties were married on 9 December 2000, after a brief courtship of about four months. The husband and the wife were then about 35 and 23 years old respectively. They have a son, born on 11 November 2001.

2 Unfortunately, the marriage was, from the outset, not a happy one. I shall elaborate on this later. On 19 December 2005, the wife commenced these divorce proceedings against the husband on the ground that he had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The husband filed a memorandum of appearance indicating that he intended to contest the divorce petition. Subsequently, the wife amended her ground for divorce to separation of at least three years with the husband’s consent to the divorce. A decree nisi dissolving the marriage on this ground was granted on 7 April 2006.

3 The ancillary matters, which were all contested, came before me subsequently. The wife, who was represented by counsel up until then, acted in person throughout the hearing of the ancillaries, while the husband was legally represented throughout the proceedings.

4 At the conclusion of the hearing, I made the following orders:

(a) Both parties shall have joint custody of the child of the marriage, with care and control to the wife and reasonable access to the husband.

(b) Both parties are to attend a parenting workshop.

(c) The husband shall have access to the child as follows:

(i) every Friday from 8.00pm to Sunday 11.00am;

(ii) every Wednesday from 7.30pm to 9.30pm;

(iii) alternate public holidays from 8.00pm on the eve of the public holiday to 6.00pm on the day of the public holiday with effect from 9 August 2007 (the eve being 8 August 2007); and

(iv) the first half of the March, June, September and year-end school holidays.

(d) The husband shall pay the wife monthly maintenance of $1 for the wife and $800 for the child on the first day of every month with effect from 1 July 2007.

(e) The husband shall sell his interest in the matrimonial flat at xxx (“the matrimonial flat”) to the wife upon the wife paying him 65% of the net value of the flat. The net value shall be the current valuation of the flat as agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, as determined by an approved Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) valuer, less the outstanding housing loan. Both parties are to bear the costs of the valuation equally if necessary. The husband shall refund his own Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) moneys used towards the purchase of the flat with accrued interest. The wife shall bear the outstanding housing loan solely.

(f) Both parties are to retain the other assets in their own names.

(g) Liberty to apply.

(h) No order as to costs.

5 Both parties have appealed against parts of my decision. In the husband’s notice of appeal, he prays for the following orders:

(a) That the husband be granted custody, care and control of the child with reasonable access to the wife.

(b) That the wife shall have weekly access from Fridays 8.00pm to Sundays 11.00am.

(c) That the husband shall support the child without contribution from the wife and bear the child’s expenses for the time the child is with him and that the wife bear the child’s expenses for the time he is with her and that there be no maintenance for the wife.

(d) That the wife shall sell or transfer all her interest in the matrimonial flat to the husband at fair market value.

(e) No order as to costs.

6 On her part, the wife in her notice of appeal prayed for a variation of my orders on access, maintenance and division of matrimonial assets.

7 I now give the grounds of my decision.

Background facts

8 The husband works as a xxx and the wife is a xxx. Both of them are polytechnic graduates.

9 Although all the ancillary matters were contested, the issue which the parties devoted the most attention to in their affidavits and written submissions was in relation to the custody, care and control of the child. On this issue, the parties had in fact been involved in litigation since April 2002, when the husband took out Originating Summons No. 650083 of 2002 for custody, care and control of the child. The wife filed a cross application for the same orders in her favour about six months later, in Originating Summons No. 650193 of 2002.

10 Both applications came before District Judge Tan Peck Cheng, who made the following orders on 12 June 2003:

(a) Both parties shall have joint custody of the child of the marriage.

(b) Both parties shall have care and control of the child as follows:

(i) the husband from Saturday 8.00pm to Thursday 9.00am; and

(ii) the wife from Thursday 9.00am to Saturday 8.00pm.

(c) The husband shall pick up the child from the wife’s residence on Saturday at 8.00pm and the wife shall pick up the child from the husband’s residence on Thursday at 9.00am.

(d) No order as to costs.

11 The wife appealed against the district judge’s order on care and control, and sought an order for care and control from Sunday 9.00am to Friday 9.00am. The appeal was heard by Judith Prakash J on 30 October 2003. The judge made various orders, including varying the care and control order such that care and control was split equally between the parties, as follows:

(a) with the husband from Saturday 8.00pm to Wednesday 9.00am; and

(b) with the wife from Wednesday 9.00am to Saturday 8.00pm.

12 Subsequently, in 2004, both parties filed applications to vary the 30 October 2003 order. Both parties sought sole custody, care and control of the child. Both applications came before me on 26 January 2006, by which time the wife had already commenced these divorce proceedings on 19 December 2005. After, inter alia, considering the Social Welfare Report on the child dated 9 December 2005 prepared by a Family and Child Welfare Officer of the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports which showed, inter alia, that the child was comfortable and happy staying with both the father and the mother, I dismissed both applications. The wife appealed against my decision and on 15 March 2006, Kan Ting Chiu J made no order on the appeal.

13 In the ancillary matters, both parties again sought sole custody, care and control of the child. They relied on their various affidavits filed in the proceedings, as well as in the earlier originating summonses. The affidavits are numerous and voluminous, and contain various allegations and cross-allegations of violence, abuse and improper conduct by the other party. They also contain self-serving statements as to why the child should be with one parent and not the other.

14 One of the husband’s strongest arguments as to why the wife was not a suitable caregiver for the child was that the wife was emotionally and mentally unstable and was predisposed to suicides, violence and self-mutilation.

15 There is no dispute that the wife took an overdose of slimming pills in February 2001 and swallowed cockroach bait in March 2001. Fortunately, on both occasions, she was rushed to hospital and recovered after treatment.

16 The wife recounted both incidents and the events leading to them in considerable detail in her affidavit filed on 3 October 2002 in Originating Summons No. 650083 of 2002. Briefly, her case was that the marriage was a mistake from the start as the husband was physically and mentally abusive and aggressive towards her. She cited examples of the husband pushing, dragging, punching and slapping her. There were frequent quarrels and fights. According to her, she was completely devastated by the husband’s behaviour and felt fear, hatred and misery, trapped and traumatised by the marriage. She felt physically and emotionally drained and did not know what to do or who to turn to for help. It was at the height of this misery and despair that she consumed the slimming pills and the cockroach bait. In hindsight, she realised that she was very stupid and immature to have behaved the way she did, and if given another chance, she would have handled things differently.

17 The husband denied the wife’s allegations and alleged that it was the wife who was violent to him and the child. It is not in dispute that the wife consented to a personal protection order (“PPO”) being made against her on 10 December 2001 on the husband’s application in favour of himself and the child in SS No. 2897 of 2001.

18 The wife had in fact also applied for a PPO for herself against the husband in SS No. 2959 of 2001. According to her, she was very depressed at that time and was left to fend on her own. She had just given birth to the child less than a month ago and the proceedings were taking a toil on her health. She had suffered a caesarean wound infection and could not afford the services of a confinement lady. She also could not afford to engage a lawyer and was not aware of her rights. She had just given birth and wanted to keep the family intact. Under the mistaken impression that if she consented to the husband’s application, she would be able to keep him by her side and not break up the family, she consented to his application and withdrew her own. The husband had threatened her that he would divorce her on the very day if she were to get a PPO against him. She was desperate and did everything she could to please him in order to save the marriage.

19 The husband denied the wife’s allegations and highlighted various incidents of violence by her, including her use of a knife to threaten him, as well as incidents of self-mutilation by her. These allegations were either denied by the wife or explained by her from her perspective as acts that were committed by her in self-defence or while in a state of despair due to the marital conflicts. It is not in dispute that the PPO against the wife was subsequently rescinded by consent on 14 July...