VQX v VQY

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wendy Yu
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 44
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: FC/D 4469/2018
• Published date: 04 May 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 02 December 2020,20 January 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Manickam Kasturibai and Ms Jocinda Wong (M/s East Asia Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Ng Pui Khim (M/s Gateway Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Maintenance,Division of Matrimonial Assets
• Citation: [2021] SGFC 44

District Judge Wendy Yu: Introduction

The parties dissolved their marriage though an Interim Judgment granted on 1 April 2019 on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. The husband (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) filed the Writ for Divorce on 26 September 2018 on the basis of the Wife’s unreasonable behaviour and the Wife (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) filed a Defence and Counterclaim on 27 November 2018 on the basis of the Plaintiff’s unreasonable behaviour. The writ was eventually resolved on an uncontested basis when leave was granted to the Defendant to withdraw her Defence, leading to the grant of the Interim Judgment on the unreasonable behaviour of the respective parties.

The parties were married in 2003 and they have one daughter, [Child 1], who was born in 2009¹.

Parties had entered into a Consent Order on 21 April 2020 and agreed to the joint custody of [Child 1], with care and control to the Defendant and reasonable access to the Plaintiff. This was therefore no longer an issue that required the Court to determine at the ancillary hearing.

The ancillary issues that remained to be adjudicated were: The Defendant’s claim for maintenance; Maintenance for [Child 1]; Division of the matrimonial assets, and The costs of the proceedings.

I had heard the parties on 2 December 2020 and I made final orders on the ancillary matters on 20 January 2021, as follows: The Plaintiff is to transfer his share of the Housing and Development Board flat at [Property 2] (“the 2nd Matrimonial Flat”) to the Defendant with no cash consideration and no CPF refund, within six (6) months from the date of this order. The Defendant shall bear the costs and expenses of the transfer. The Defendant shall also be solely responsible for paying off the mortgage loan that remains on the 2nd Matrimonial Flat in future. The Housing and Development at [Property 1] ("1st Matrimonial Flat”) is to be sold in the open market within six (6) months from the date of the Final Judgment. The proceeds from the sale of the 1st matrimonial flat shall be used to pay the outstanding mortgage loan and the cost and expenses of sale. The Defendant shall be entitled to $286,752.00 of the sale proceeds, while the Plaintiff shall be entitled to the remainder of the balance sale proceeds. Each party is to refund their respective CPF accounts for monies utilised in the purchase of the 1st Matrimonial Flat together with accrued interest from their own share of the balance sale proceeds. For the property in Malaysia at [Property 3], the parties shall take steps to facilitate the surrender of the purchase and should there be any liabilities that rise from such surrender, parties are to shoulder the liabilities jointly. Each party to retain all other assets in their sole names. There shall be no maintenance for the Defendant. The Plaintiff shall continue to pay maintenance of $1,200 per month for the child, [Child 1] with effect from 31 January 2021 and thereafter on the last day of each month into the Defendant’s POSB Bank Savings Account No. 171-XXX. Each party to bear their own legal costs. Liberty to apply.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the entirety of the ancillary orders, while the Defendant filed an appeal against my order for maintenance of [Child 1] and my order of no maintenance for the Defendant. I now set out the grounds for my decision.

Facts of this case

The Plaintiff is 45 years old and a Senior Black Belt with [S].²

The Defendant is 42 years old and a part time accountant with [H]³. The Defendant also earned additional income from selling handbags on Carousell.⁴ The Defendant is a Chinese National who had resided in Shanghai before she married the Plaintiff.⁵

Issues (a) and (b) - the Defendant’s maintenance & child’s maintenance The Plaintiff’s position

As a matter of background, the Defendant had made an application⁶ for interim maintenance and I had ordered on 28 August 2019 for the Plaintiff to pay interim maintenance of $1,200 per month for [Child 1], and interim maintenance of $800 per month for the Defendant. There was no appeal against this interim order.

The Plaintiff has submitted that the Defendant should not receive any further maintenance as her current monthly gross wage is $2,700.00 a month, which was a material change since the interim maintenance of $800.00 was ordered on 28 August 2019 when her gross wage back in 2019 was $1,500.00 per month⁷. In addition to her salary as a part-time accountant, she also had income from selling handbags online with Carousell.⁸ The Plaintiff also highlighted that the Defendant’s earning capacity in that the Defendant had teaching experience at [T] School and gave private Chinese tuition in the past⁹.

The Plaintiff also contended that the Defendant’s proposed list of expenses were unsubstantiated and with the Defendant receiving a significant amount from the pool of the matrimonial assets she no longer needed maintenance from the Plaintiff.¹⁰

On the issue of [Child 1]’s maintenance, the Plaintiff has submitted that the Court should order the same amount of $1,200.00 as ordered in the interim application.¹¹ The Plaintiff has argued that the Defendant’s monthly income has increased since the interim order for maintenance was made. The Plaintiff also added that the Defendant was inflating [Child 1]’s expenses when she now claims that [Child 1]’s current expenses is $5,211.63 while it was $4,506.10 back in 2019¹², with the Defendant enrolling [Child 1] for various enrichment classes without seeking the Plaintiff’s consent.

The Defendant’s position

The Defendant declared her current monthly maintenance to be $4,593.58, excluding the monthly rental expenses of $2,500.00 if she has to move out of the matrimonial home.¹³ The Defendant also averred that her earning capacity has been impaired because of the Plaintiff’s physical abuse.¹⁴ While there was an interim maintenance order for the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant a sum of $800.00 as maintenance, the Defendant stated that the accommodation related expenses such as mortgage instalments, utility bills and property tax were borne by the Plaintiff when this interim order was made. The Defendant then submitted that she expects that there will be additional accommodation related expenses that she would have to bear and so she should be awarded with more maintenance. ¹⁵

The Defendant acknowledged that she was earning a monthly gross salary of $4,200.00 at the peak of her career pursuits but she has had difficulty finding work since 2018 because of her inability to stay seated for an extended period of time.¹⁶ The Defendant also added that her current income as a part -time accountant of $1,200.00 to $2,160.00 represents the “best case scenario”¹⁷ for her and has requested that the Court order the Plaintiff to pay her a monthly sum of $2,050.00 as spousal maintenance. The Defendant has cited the case of Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] SGCA 15 to reinforce her point that the guiding principle of financial preservation required the wife to be maintained at a standard which should reasonably commensurate with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

On the issue of child maintenance, the Defendant submitted that [Child 1]’s current monthly expenses amount to $5,121.63¹⁸, although the Defendant had stated [Child 1]’s monthly average expenses to be $2,817.22 per month¹⁹ over the course of July and August 2020. According to the Defendant, [Child 1]’s additional tuition and enrichment expenses are necessary to give her the opportunity to develop her artistic passion and talents²⁰.

Decision on maintenance Maintenance for Defendant

Section 114(1) of the Women’s Charter sets out the factors that the Court may take into consideration in deciding the award of maintenance for the wife. The Court of Appeal in the case of TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 (“TNL v TNK”) has at [62] stated that the award of maintenance is a “multi-factorial inquiry” which requires the Court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the matters listed in ss114(1)(a) to 114(1)(g) of the Women’s Charter.

Since the interim order of maintenance, the Defendant has had an increase in salary with a take home pay of $2,160.²¹ This income is in addition to her other income from selling handbags in Carousell.²² The Defendant is a resourceful individual who had, in her own words, managed to amass “significant savings”²³ from selling branded handbags online such that she could use these funds to purchase properties in China. The Defendant also has had teaching experience at [T] School and gave private Chinese tuition in the past²⁴.

I considered her expenses that she now claims to be $4,593.58 per month to be inflated. She has stated that her own expenses in July 2020 and August 2020 to be an average of $986.78²⁵, which seems to be a more realistic figure. In her current claim, she has included an allowance of $1,000.00 for her own parents, $350.00 for her parent’s health supplements and $110.00 for a house cleaner. Her personal expenses such as cosmetics and skincare, health tonics, grooming, clothing and shoes, recreation and entertainment, overseas vacation, travel expenses to China amount to at least $1,516.00 per month and some of these are not necessities. There is also no evidence that she travels overseas on a monthly basis and even if the figures given by the Defendant were on a pro-rated basis, there is no evidence to substantiate the figures. I would say that her reasonable expenses are in the region of $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 and these expenses can be met with her income as she is financially independent. She will also not be incurring another $2,500.00 for rent since I have ordered the matrimonial property flat at [Property 2] (“the 2nd Matrimonial Flat”) to be transferred to her.

An order for maintenance for a...