VBG v VBH

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lo Wai Ping
• Judgment Date: 22 February 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGFC 14
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No. 3256 of 2018
• Published date: 02 March 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 16 June 2021,17 June 2021,26 July 2021,11 June 2021,10 August 2021,21 May 2021,30 July 2021,17 August 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Oei with Ms Yap and Mr Heng (Tan Oei & Oei LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Jeyabalen (Jeyabalen & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Ancillary Matters,Division of Matrimonial Assets,Maintenance of Wife,Custody of Children,Maintenance of Children
• Citation: [2022] SGFC 14

District Judge Lo Wai Ping: INTRODUCTION

These grounds of decision concern ancillary matters consequent upon divorce. The parties were married in Singapore in March 2006 and interim judgment for their divorce was granted on 5 March 2019 (“Interim Judgment”).

I heard parties on their ancillary matters between May and July 2021 and gave my decision on these matters in August 2021. The plaintiff – wife (“Wife”) did not appeal against my decision. However, the defendant – husband (“Husband”) appealed against my entire decision (except for my order that there shall be no maintenance for the Wife).

Background

The Husband is 46 years old, a Singapore citizen and ex-Indian national who came over to Singapore on scholarship for his school education. He went on to obtain a bachelor’s degree from a local university, and subsequently, a postgraduate degree from a top tier American university. He worked in the finance sector.¹

The Wife is 50 years old, a Singapore permanent resident and a Japanese national. She was brought up and schooled in Singapore and her parents reside in Singapore (her father runs his own company in Singapore).

At the time of her marriage in 2006, the Wife was employed as an executive co-ordinator in an airline (“the Airline”) earning a gross monthly salary of about $4,000. She stopped working in 2009 when the family moved to Tokyo for the Husband’s work. Their first child, a daughter (“DG”) was then about 3 years old. The Wife was offered a position in the Airline’s Tokyo office, but declined the offer as she had to look after DG by herself in Tokyo without the help of a domestic helper or her parents (who resided in Singapore). The Wife was offered 2 years of unpaid leave but when their second child, a son (“SN”) was born in 2011 in Tokyo, she resigned from the Airline.

In mid-2013, the parties returned to Singapore from Tokyo. They moved into a condominium unit that was bought in 2009 by the Husband (the “Matrimonial Home”). The Wife continued to be a full-time homemaker, looking after the family. Then, DG was about 8 years old, whilst SN was about 2 years old (together the “Children”).

In October 2017, there was a domestic incident involving the parties (“the Incident”) which led to the police being called and the Wife and Children (who were then about 11 years old and 6 years old) leaving the Matrimonial Home in the early hours of the morning. Since then, the Wife and Children have lived separately from the Husband. After the Incident, the Wife also applied for, and was granted, a personal protection order (“PPO”) for herself.

In July 2018, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings against the Husband. Interim Judgment was granted on 5 March 2019 on the Wife’s claim as well as the Husband’s counterclaim. The divorce proceedings were acrimonious. Several applications were filed by the parties. These included applications for interim care and control and access, interim maintenance, several discoveries and interrogatories, maintenance enforcement actions, injunctions and committal proceedings. The Wife appealed against orders dismissing her application for interim maintenance for herself and the Children. Her appeal as regards her claim for spousal maintenance was dismissed. However, her appeal as regards the Children’s maintenance was allowed and the High Court made orders on 21 February 2020 that the Husband was to pay all the Children’s school fees including arrears (“HC 2020 Maintenance Order”).²

As at the date of my decision, there was a warrant issued for the Husband’s arrest due to his failure to attend (on 2 occasions) the decision hearing of a maintenance enforcement summons (“MSS 19xx/2020”) taken out by the Wife against him for non-payment of the maintenance ordered under the HC 2020 Maintenance Order.³ The arrears (of about $113,000 plus) claimed by the Wife in MSS 19xx/2020 was contested by the Husband.⁴ The Husband was also in breach of his obligations under the Mareva injunction ordered against him on 29 April 2021 under an urgent application filed by the Wife in FC/SUM 1345/2021 (“SUM 1345”). At the time of the hearing of the ancillary matters (“AMs”) before me, the Husband was in India.

Issues

The issues in dispute were these: (a) the division of matrimonial assets, (b) the maintenance for the Wife and Children, and (c) the Children’s custody and access issues.

On the division of matrimonial assets, parties took very different positions. I will be focusing only on the final submissions made by both counsel at the hearing.

The Husband’s counsel submitted as follows: that the Husband should retain the Matrimonial Home (which is registered in his name), but he would pay the Wife a sum of $110,000. According to the Husband, $110,000 was 30% of the increase in the market value of the Matrimonial Home between 2017 (when the Wife left him and the home) and the time of the ancillary matters hearing in 2021⁵; and each party should retain all the other assets held in his/her own name, except that the Husband should also have the motor vehicle (Jeep Wrangler) SKD XX (the “Car”) registered in the Wife’s name⁶, and save as set out in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above, there should be no claim by each party against the assets of the other party.

The Wife’s counsel submitted that an equal apportionment of the matrimonial assets between the parties would be fair and equitable. In addition, the Wife should also be given an uplift of 20% on account of the adverse inference to be drawn against the Husband for not providing full and frank disclosure of his assets.⁷ As such, she argued that the final division of the matrimonial assets should be 70:30 in the Wife’s favour.

I noted that the Wife had stated in her second affidavit for the ancillary matters (WA2, filed in April 2021) that she maintained her proposal in her first affidavit of assets and means (WA1, filed in May 2019)⁸ that for division, she should be awarded 50% share of the net value of the Matrimonial Home, with each party retaining all the other assets held in their respective sole names. She explained that this meant that the Husband was to retain the Matrimonial Home upon payment to her of a sum equivalent to 50% of the net value of the Matrimonial Home (the net value being the difference between the market value of the Matrimonial Home and its outstanding mortgage loan)).⁹ When the Wife’s counsel was asked about the apparent inconsistency between her submissions and the Wife’s position in her affidavits, she submitted that there was no inconsistency and that the Wife’s statements in her affidavits should be understood in the context of this case. The Wife was laying claim to the entire pool but because of the Husband’s lack of full and frank disclosure regarding his other assets, the Wife was looking towards the Matrimonial Home and it was therefore in that context that she had said that each party was to keep his/her own assets.¹⁰

As regards the Children, the Wife asked for sole custody, and care and control of the Children. The Husband did not object to the Wife having care and control of the Children, but he wanted to have joint custody and reasonable access to the Children (the scope of which was contested by the Wife).

On the issue of maintenance, the parties disagreed on the Wife’s claim for spousal maintenance. They also disagreed on the amount that would be required for the Children’s reasonable maintenance and their respective contributions to that amount.

I heard the AMs over a few sittings commencing on 21 May 2021 to end July 2021 before delivering my final decision in August 2021. For the hearing, the Wife was represented by counsel and filed the following 4 affidavits:

	Filed on	Wife’s Affidavits for the AMs	Referred to as
1	29 May 2019	1st Affidavit of assets and means	WA1
2	6 Apr 2021	2nd affidavit	WA2
3	10 May 2021	3rd affidavit	WA3
4	30 Jun 2021	4th affidavit	WA4

In addition, she also filed an Intention to Refer to other affidavits that parties had each filed as a result of the several applications for discovery and interrogatories that had been taken out in 2019 and 2020. These were as follows:

	Filed on	Other Affidavits	Referred to here as follows:
1	29 Nov 2019	Wife’s voluntary affidavit in SUM 3224/2019. SUM 3224/2019 was the Husband’s application for discovery filed in Sep 2019.	WA (SUM 3224)
2	2 Oct 2019	Husband’s 1st affidavit for SUM 2498/2019. SUM 2498/2019 was the Wife’s 1st application for discovery filed in Jul 2019.	HA1 (SUM 2498)
3	31 Dec 2019	Husband’s 2nd affidavit for SUM 2498/2019	HA2 (SUM 2498)
4	19 Mar 2020	Husband’s 1st affidavit for SUM 633/2020 and SUM 634/2020. SUM 633/2020 and 634/2020 was the Wife’s 2nd application for interrogatories and discovery respectively. Both applications were filed in Feb 2020.	HA1(SUM 633/634)
5	26 Aug 2020	Husband’s 2nd affidavit for SUM 633/2020 and SUM 634/2020	HA2 (SUM 633/634)
6	5 Oct 2020	Husband’s affidavit for SUM 2134/2020. SUM 2134/2020 was the Wife’s 3rd application for discovery filed in Aug 2020.	HA (SUM 2134)

As for the Husband, he filed the following 2 affidavits for the hearing of the AMs:

	Filed on	Husband’s Affidavits for the AMs	Referred to here as follows:
1	29 May 2019	1st Affidavit of assets and means	HA1
2	1 Jul 2021	2nd affidavit	HA2

He was not legally represented at times in the divorce proceedings, but he was represented by counsel (Mr Jayabalen) for the hearing of the AMs and when his second affidavit (HA2) was filed. HA2 was affirmed by the Husband before a Notary Public in Pune, India.¹¹

It should be noted that the Husband...