VJF v VJG

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jason Gabriel Chiang
• Judgment Date: 27 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGFC 54
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MSS 3776 of 2019 (DCA 27 of 2020)
• Published date: 10 July 2020
• Year: 2020
• Hearing Date: 21 February 2020,18 March 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Complainant and Respondent in Person
• Subject Matter: Section 69(1A) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Maintenance of Incapacitated Husband
• Citation: [2020] SGFC 54

District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang: INTRODUCTION

This case presented the question of whether maintenance should be ordered to be paid by a wife to an alleged incapacitated husband and the quantum of such reasonable maintenance, if any.

In MSS 3776/2019, the Complainant Husband (“Husband”) sought that the Respondent Wife (“Wife”) pay monthly spousal maintenance of S$500.00 to him. At the 2nd hearing for the case, the Husband revised his request for monthly spousal maintenance upwards to S$750.00. The Wife maintained that no maintenance should be payable.

At the time of the hearing, parties had lived apart but were still married. The Wife intended to file for divorce but had yet to do so. Both parties were self-represented in these proceedings. The trial was conducted over 2 half-day trial hearings on 21 February 2020 and 18 March 2020.

At the conclusion of the trial on 18 March 2020, I held that the Husband had discharged his burden of proving that he was an “incapacitated husband”. I, therefore, ordered, in MO 172/2020, that the Wife pay him reasonable maintenance of S$400.00 per month to the Husband’s bank account. In this regard, such maintenance was, in essence, interim maintenance, given the Wife’s intention to proceed with divorce. However, as of the time of the reporting of this case, the Wife had yet to file for divorce.

On 27 March 2020, the Wife, being dissatisfied with my decision, filed an Appeal against the Orders. The full grounds of my decision are set out below.

FACTUAL MATRIX

The Husband and Wife were married on 3 April 2010. There were no children of the marriage. At the time of hearing, parties were already separated for over 2 years. The Husband argued that they have been separated since 4 September 2017.

The Husband purportedly suffered a work injury sometime in 2017 and had been on medical certificate leave since then. Sometime near the end of 2018, the Husband suffered another fall at NTUC Fairprice Supermarket, allegedly due to complications with his medication.

In relation to the Husband’s injuries, various medical documents were admitted into evidence, including:- a medical report dated 9 November 2017 from a Consultant for the Department of Psychiatry for Ng Teng Fong General Hospital (“NTFGH”) stating that the Husband suffered from Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and that he was on medication for this (“MR1”); a medical report marked “9 May 2018” from a doctor from the Orthopaedics Department of NTFGH stating that the Husband had a left ankle injury resulting in a complete tear of his ATFL ligament and that he also had left ankle pain. The doctor highlighted that the torn ligament was permanent and that the Husband was losing his job in July 2019 as a result of his injury (“MR2”); a medical certification of work status dated 25 July 2018 signed by two (2) doctors of NTFGH stating that the Husband was “[p]ermanently unfit for work due to physical impairment, educational background and adjustment disorder” (“MR3”); a medical report dated 15 August 2018 from a Senior Consultant of the Department of Anaesthesia of NTFGH stating that the Husband had been seen by NTFGH’s pain clinic for several pain issues, including, right upper limb pain, “numbness due to generative changes symptoms aggravated by incident at work”, right upper back pain due to increased muscle tension and left ankle pain and that the Husband was on treatment for a psychiatric disorder. The medical report concluded by stating that “[b]ased on his clinical presentation, he has incapacity to work which could be permanent” (“MR4”); a medical report dated 9 December 2019 by a senior consultant of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery of NTFGH stating that the Husband had a primary diagnosis of “Cervical Radiculopathy” and other issues such as chronic back pain, chronic neck and right “UI” pain, left knee pain, joint pains and adjustment disorder. The doctor concluded that “[a]t current state, I would state that [the Husband] is not fit for any kind of work permanently due to his multiple issues” (“MR5”); and a medical report dated 13 February 2020 by a different doctor of the Orthopaedics department of NTFGH stating that they would be getting a psychiatrist assessment for further evaluation on some of the Husband’s symptoms and recommended the continuation of medication and hospitalization leave till then (“MR6”).

The Wife provided no evidence to call the medical documents into question. The Wife, however, presented draft divorce documents purportedly signed by the Husband, which were ultimately not filed.

The Wife had engaged the services of a law firm on 8 March 2018 to file for Uncontested Divorce Proceedings at a fixed rate. Draft divorce papers were prepared and appeared to be executed sometime after.

The signed Statement of Particulars was dated 2 April 2018. The Defendant’s Consent to Simplified Divorce Proceedings was executed by the Husband before a Commissioner but the document was only dated “this 2ndday of 2018” (“Husband’s Consent to Simplified Divorce”). The Husband confirmed that he signed this document but was unsure when this document was signed. There was also a Draft Consent Order, which was not dated (the “Unfiled Draft Consent Order”). This was signed by the Wife’s lawyers. Even though there was a signature on the document which was supposed to be the Husband’s and was purportedly witnessed by the same Commissioner for Oaths who had witnessed the Husband’s signing of the Husband’s Consent to Simplified Divorce, the Husband denied signing this document. The Draft Consent Order provided that the Wife waived her right to maintenance, but was silent on the Husband’s claim for maintenance. There is no indication that the Husband received any legal advice on these documents. The Husband purported that he was under the influence of medication and that an elderly lady from the law firm told him to sign and so he signed the one document.

In any event, these divorce papers were not filed. On 31 May 2018, the Wife received a letter from the law firm she had engaged, informing her that due to the firm’s restructuring, the firm would not be doing any uncontested divorce matters for the time being and offered a refund of the full legal fees paid (“Lawyer’s 31 May 2018 Letter”).

After the restructuring of the firm appeared to be resolved, the Wife re-engaged the same law firm to file for Uncontested Divorce Proceedings on 18 September 2018. However, by then the Husband was not agreeable to sign any divorce papers.

The Wife’s highest educational qualification was an ITE diploma and she worked as an Administrative and Human Resource Executive at an engineering firm. Based on the Wife’s Notices of Assessment for FY 2017 to FY 2019, including bonuses, she was earning on average between S$2,975.08 and S$3,398.08.

The Husband had no formal qualification for education. He had been unemployed since his accident, and had not been earning any income. While the Husband received a sum of S$36,680.00 as a one-off Work Injury Compensation, he was unable to receive pay-outs from insurance or to obtain any financial aid. The Husband claimed to have spent the whole of his Work Injury Compensation on his medical bills and other expenses and that he had insufficient funds in his bank account to maintain himself.

On 12 December 2019, NTFGH sent the Husband a letter of demand for outstanding medical charges and disbursements amount to S$10,150.95, which the Husband was unable to pay. By 22 February 2020, the Husband’s unpaid medical bill with NTFGH from 28 October 2019 till then had ballooned to S$12,259.25. At the time of the 2nd hearing, the Husband purported that his outstanding medical bills was over S$13,000.00.

THE ISSUES

In the circumstances, the key issues to be determined in this case were:- whether the Husband is an incapacitated husband eligible for spousal maintenance; what is the effect of the Unfiled Draft Consent Order; and in the circumstances, what would a reasonable quantum of spousal maintenance be for an incapacitated husband, if any?

IS THE HUSBAND AN INCAPACITATED HUSBAND? The Law

Pursuant to section 69(1A) of the Women’s Charter, (Cap. 353) (“Women’s Charter”), the Court may, on the application of an incapacitated husband, and on due proof that his wife has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for him, order the wife to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for the maintenance of that husband.

Section 2 of the Women’s Charter defines “incapacitated husband” as a husband who:- during the marriage, is or becomes – incapacitated, by any physical or mental disability or any illness, from earning a livelihood; and unable to maintain himself; and continues to be unable to maintain himself.

The inclusion of this right for an incapacitated husband to seek maintenance from his wife was introduced in the Women’s Charter (Amendment) Bill, Bill No. 6/2016. This was subsequently passed and came into effect on 1 July 2016 by way of the Women’s Charter (Amendment) Act 2016, Act No. 7 of 2016.

At the 2nd reading of the Women’s Charter (Amendment) Bill on 29 February 2016, then Minister for Social and Family Development, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin stated that the objective of such inclusion was as follows:-

… The second category of maintenance is for a spouse or ex-spouse. This is the focus of the proposed amendment. Today, a woman can seek spousal maintenance from her husband or ex-husband. The law, however, does not enable men to seek spousal maintenance from their wives or ex-wives. This is something that is increasingly being questioned and debated, and my Ministry has certainly received a broad range of opinions.

At one end of the spectrum, some Singaporeans have argued that spousal maintenance should be gender-blind and based on needs. …

At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who feel...