VII v VIJ
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Chia Wee Kiat |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] SGFC 48 |
| Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | FC/D 3401/2018 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Published date | 02 June 2020 |
| Hearing Date | 08 October 2019 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Ms Divya Nair (Grays LLC) |
| Defendant Counsel | Ms Michelle Tang (Gabriel Law Corporation) |
| Subject Matter | Family law,Custody, Care and Control,Access,Division of Matrimonial Assets,Maintenance |
| Citation | [2020] SGFC 48 |
The Plaintiff shall be referred to as the “Wife” and the Defendant shall be referred to as the “Husband. The parties were married on 4 February 2002 in Kerala, India.1 There are two children to the marriage whom I share refer to in this judgment as [J] and [K] (redacted names). The children are 12 and 10 respectively this year.2 J is currently living with the Husband and K with the Wife.3
The Husband is the Chief Executive Officer of [AB] Pte Ltd (“AB”),4 a company dealing with research and development on medical technologies and software development for interactive digital media.5 AB was incorporated by the Husband in May 2011.6 The Wife is a Business Development Manager7 with [CD] Pte Ltd.8
The Husband started work in Singapore in 1997 and obtained Singapore Permanent Residency in 1999.9 When the Wife married the Husband in 2002, she was pursuing a Master’s degree in Pharmacy and the Husband was working in Singapore. The Wife says that after the marriage, she uprooted herself and came to Singapore to be with the Husband.10 The Wife obtained Singapore Permanent Residency in 2003.11
The Husband says that the parties were involved in a road traffic accident in August 2002. The Wife required multiple operations and was in and out of the hospital until 2005. Each operation left the Wife immobile and requiring close care by the Husband.12 The Wife subsequently commenced DC Suit No. 1756 of 2007 (“DC 1756”)13 in which she was eventually awarded $174,000.14
The Wife says that she joined the workforce sometime in 2004. 15 She stopped working in 2007 and stayed home following a miscarriage. In 2008, J was born and K in 2010.16 The parties engaged a maid for five months and then another maid was engaged. After two years with the family, the Husband terminated her service and transferred her to another family without any reason.17 The Wife believes that the action by the Husband was to subtly dissuade her from returning to the workforce.18
The Wife says she continued to stay home and cared for the children.19 She says that the Husband behaved and insisted on being treated as an “alpha male”. He would not assist her with any of the household chores. From 2011, the Husband failed to provide financially for the care of the children or groceries for the family. She had to plead with him for financial contributions but he would occasionally pay for the children’s kindergarten fees.20
The Wife says that sometime in May 2012, she insisted to return to work but the Husband refused. Faced with various challenges while living with the Husband, she left the Husband in 2013 with the children.21 She had initially stayed at a friend’s house before finding a place to rent at Yishun.22 As the Husband did not provide any financial support throughout this period, she started work as a student care teacher in May 2013.23
The Husband says that after the parties separated on 28 March 2013, the Wife denied him access to the children for a period of six months.24
On 20 June 2013, the Husband filed OSF 272/2013/S (“OSF 272”) seeking joint custody of the children with care and control to him and reasonable supervised access to the Wife under the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed).
On 30 July 2013, the parties entered into a consent order FC/ORC12472/2013 (“ORC 12472”) before the learned District Judge Jen Koh giving parties joint custody of the children with interim care and control to the Wife and interim access to the Husband.25
On 14 October 2013, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings (Divorce Suit No. D 5061 of 2013 (“D 5061”)) against the Husband on grounds of unreasonable behaviour.26
On 28 May 2014, the interim access orders in ORC 12472 were varied by District Judge Jen Koh and this was followed by a further variation by the same judge on 7 July 2014. The variation in both instances enhanced the terms of access to the Husband.
The Husband says that in November 2014, the Wife again unilaterally withholds access to both children without any reasons given.27
The Wife says that on 11 December 2014, she moved into the women’s shelter for a month through the help of the Family Service Centre (“FSC”) counsellors.28
On 9 January 2015, the parties entered into a consent order
Sometime after 15 January 2015, the Wife moved back into the matrimonial home.30
On 19 July 2016, D 5061 was dismissed by the learned District Judge Wong Keen Onn31 (“the DJ”) after a 14-day trial.32 According to the Husband, he resumed access to the children after 22 months of unilateral withholding by the Wife.33
On 4 November 2016, the Wife obtained a maintenance order in MSS 5535/2014 (“MSS 5535”) for the maintenance of the children.34 The Wife also obtained a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) (PPO 1176/2016) in SS 2992/2014 (“SS 2992”) against the Husband on the same day.35
According to the Wife, the Husband defaulted the maintenance payments and she has taken out enforcement applications against him.36 The Wife says that despite an Enforcement Order (EMO 1319/2018) being issued against the Husband, he continues to be in arrears.37
The Wife says that on 26 May 2018, the Husband failed to return both of the children after exercising his lawful access.38 On 27 May 2018, the Wife made a police report.39
The Wife says that she found out on 29 May 2018 that the Husband had taken the children to Kandang Kerbau Hospital on 26 May 2016 and lodged a report that she had abused them.40 She says that she was subsequently contacted by the Child Protection Service (“CPS”) of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (“MSF”) to arrange for a meeting.41
On 1 June 2018, the Husband filed a PPO application (SS 1185/2018) against the Wife from committing family violence against him and the children.42
The Wife says that at the meeting with CPS on 13 June 2018, she was informed that CPS and the police found no evidence of abuse and the matter was closed. She was also handed a Case Card with the classification “No offence disclosed” by the police officer present.43
On 22 June 2018, the Husband filed FC/SUM 2242/2018 (“SUM 2242”) in OSF 272 to seek,
In July 2018, K returned to the Wife out of her own volition whilst J continues to reside with the Husband. 44
On 23 July 2018, the Wife commenced the current divorce proceedings (Divorce Suit No D 3401 of 2018 (“D 3401”)) on grounds of four years’ separation.45 The Husband contested the divorce.
On 19 October 2018, the DJ called for a Custody Evaluation Report (“CER”) in respect of SUM 2242 in OSF 272.
On 7 March 2019, an Interim Judgment (“IJ”) was granted46 by the DJ after a one-day trial with costs of $3,500 to be paid by the Husband to the Wife. The ancillary matters (“AM”) were adjourned to be heard in chambers.
The AM came up for hearing before me on 8 October 2019. The issues for determination are as follows:47
In addition to the above, it is common ground that SUM 2242 is to be dealt with at the AM hearing and that the court should have regard to the CER ordered by the DJ when considering the issue of custody, care and control of the children and access.
After hearing the parties’ submissions, I reserved my decision for the parties to file a Joint Summary by 29 October 2019 and their further written submissions to update their positions by 12 November 2019.
The Joint Summary was filed on 21 February 2020 and the parties filed their further written submissions on 28 February 2020. 48
At the 8 October 2019 hearing, the parties indicated that they have no objection for the decision of the court to be rendered in writing. This is permissible under Rule 670 of the Family Justice Rules.
Having carefully considered the Joint Summary and the further submissions of the parties, I now set out my decision and the accompanying reasons.
Custody, care and control and accessThe parties agree to joint custody of J and K but both parties seek care and control of the children.49
The Wife’s positionThe Wife says that the Husband has breached the Order of Court dated 7 July 2014 (ORC 11786/2014) which has led to the present situation of split care and control, where J resides with the Husband and K resides with the Wife.50
The Wife says the Husband’s abuse against her and their children was one of the reasons she moved out with her children as she was unable to endure the torment of the Husband any further. She refers to a letter from a FSC dated 4 April 201351 written on her behalf to the Family Court requesting for the court to assist to get the children’s passports from the Husband. The letter alleged that the Husband had been harsh in his discipline with the two children and that he had hit the children’s buttocks with a cane, and would be doing the hitting out of anger. The letter also made mention of an incident where the Husband had a physical struggle for their son in the public and the police were alerted by members of the public to the scene.
On 4 November 2016, the Wife obtained a PPO (PPO 1176/2016)52 against the Husband.
The Wife says the Husband has made false and unsubstantiated allegations against her of abuse towards the children. She says that she was subjected to a fruitless investigation by MSF and the police, which concluded with no offence being disclosed and the Husband being ordered to return J to the Wife.53
The Wife says that she has been the primary caretaker of the children from their birth and has continually showered them with love and affection. K has chosen to stay with her and not the Husband of her own volition.54 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VIJ v VII
...Background The parties have been mired in litigation since 2013. The detailed history of proceedings is recorded in my earlier decision (VII v VIJ [2020] SGFC 48 (“VII”)) rendered in respect of the ancillary matters (“AM”) in the divorce proceedings (FC/D 3401/2018 (“D3401”)) filed by the M......
-
VTQ v VTR
...of proof lies on a party asserting a proposition or refuting other evidence brought into play. To quote from my decision in VII v VIJ [2020] SGFC 48 (at [110]): The onus is on the Wife to satisfy the court on the basis of her claim and not for the court to engage in a speculation as to what......