VCP v VCQ
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Cheryl Koh |
Judgment Date | 14 November 2019 |
Neutral Citation | [2019] SGFC 126 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Divorce Suit No. 1442 of 2017, District Court Appeal No. 105 of 2019 |
Published date | 21 November 2019 |
Year | 2019 |
Hearing Date | 14 August 2019,21 August 2019 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr. Dhawant Singh (SK Kumar Law Practice LLP) --for the Plaintiff Husband |
Defendant Counsel | Ms. Chua Siow Lee Dora (Chia Ngee Thuang & Co)--for the Defendant Wife |
Subject Matter | Family Law,Ancillary Matters,section 112 & 113 of the Women's Charter (Cap. 353) |
Citation | [2019] SGFC 126 |
These are the ancillary matters arising out of a divorce involving two issues: the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the defendant wife (the “
In this case, the matrimonial flat is in the name of three persons, namely, the plaintiff husband (the “
On 14 and 21 August 2019, I noted that both counsel agreed at the ancillary matters hearing that the Son’s CPF contributions are towards 45% of the matrimonial flat. I determined that of the balance 55%, each party is entitled to 50% of the same. I further recorded that parties are at liberty to apply for consequential orders, if parties and the Son are unable to agree on the transfer or the sale of the matrimonial flat.
The Husband has appealed against the part of my decision determining that parties are entitled to their 55% interest in the matrimonial flat in equal proportions.
Parties were married on 31 October 1980. The Husband commenced divorce proceedings on 04 April 2017. Interim Judgment was granted on 03 October 2018. The marriage therefore lasted 38 years.
There are three (3) male adult children to the marriage, aged 38, 28 and 27 years old. The children are gainfully employed. The eldest and the youngest children live with the Wife in the matrimonial flat. The second child lives with an uncle. The Husband lives alone in a rented room.
The Husband is 59 years old and works as a TV operator. The Wife is 58 years old. She was a housewife throughout most of the marriage, although the Husband claims that she is now working.
Under an order made on 9 July 2013 in MSS No. 1999 of 2013, the Husband is to pay the Wife interim maintenance of $800.00 per month. By way of a consent order made on 16 January 2019 in MSS No. 209 of 2019, maintenance was reduced to $400.00 per month.
The affidavits and submissions filed by the parties are as follows:
A first consideration arises as to whether the Court may make any orders directly affecting the matrimonial flat, as it is not only in the names of the Husband and the Wife, but also in the name of a third party, the Son. In this regard, the Court of Appeal in
In the present case, the Husband disputes the Son’s interest in the matrimonial flat, but refuses to make any application in the High Court to determine the Son’s interest, despite directions at earlier Case Conferences. Both counsel have not addressed in their submissions which of the three options set out in
A further consideration arises to whether the Court should apply the structured approach espoused in the Court of Appeal decision of
This is a long marriage of 39 years with three (3) adult children. The Wife was a housewife throughout most of the marriage, but the Husband alleges that she has been working for the past few years as there are contributions into her CPF account from May 2016 to July 2018 and October 2018 to April 2019. The Wife claims that these were false declarations made by her friend for her company to qualify for foreign labour entitlement. In my view, whether the structured approach in
Parties largely do not dispute the value of the matrimonial pool. I find the same to to around $488,844.23 (subject to the Son’s interest in the matrimonial flat), computed as follows:
| | | |
| |||
| | | |
| | | |
| | ||
| |||
| | | |
| | | |
| | ||
| |||
| |
To continue reading
Request your trial