VSF v VSG

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lo Wai Ping
• Judgment Date: 14 June 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 58
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No 1141 of 2020 (Summons No 1115 & 1327 of 2020)
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 22 June 2021
• Hearing Date: 15 January 2021,11 November 2020,02 December 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Campos Godwin Gilbert with Ms Vathany Raveentheran (Godwin Campos LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Suresh S/o Damodara with Mr Sukhmit Singh (Damodara Ong LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Custody,Care and Control
• Citation: [2021] SGFC 58

District Judge Lo Wai Ping: Introduction

The parties were married in 2008. They have a daughter (“Child”) who is presently 7 years of age.

The plaintiff - wife (the “Wife”) left home following an incident on the night of 12 July 2016 (the “July 2016 Incident”) and the parties have lived apart since. At the material time, the parties and the Child were staying in the same household with the parents and sister of the defendant - husband (the “Husband”). The Child was then about 2 and a half years old.

About three and a half years later, on 9 March 2020, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings against the Husband. The Husband filed a defence and counterclaim and the matters relating to the divorce are still pending.

On 3 June 2020, the Wife filed SUM 1327/2020 (“SUM 1327”) seeking, inter alia, interim orders for parties to have joint custody of the Child, and for her to have care and control of the Child. The Husband objected and sought a dismissal of her whole application. SUM 1327 was first heard by another District Judge (“DJ”) on 22 July 2020. After hearing the parties, the DJ ordered the parties to attend CFRC mediation and counselling (“CFRC Mediation”). Pending further or final orders in SUM 1327, including any orders that parties may record by consent at the CFRC Mediation, the DJ made certain “interim” interim orders giving the Wife daily uninterrupted time of 3 hours with the Child at the Husband’s parents’ home and rendered her brief reasons for these orders. The Child was then 6 years old and residing with the Husband in his parents’ home.

Unfortunately, the parties were unable to resolve their differences at the CFRC Mediation held in September 2020. Parties were then directed to file further affidavits in SUM 1327 as certain developments had taken place that were relevant to the application and a hearing date was fixed. The parties were informed that the DJ was on long medical leave and they had no objections that I take over the hearing of their matters. I heard the parties over 2 special half day hearings in November and December 2020. Parties filed further submissions for these hearings.

On 15 January 2021, I gave my decision. In brief, I ordered that in the interim, pending the divorce and further and final orders in the divorce proceedings, parties were to have joint custody and shared care and control of their Child in Singapore. I also ordered that: that neither party was to remove the Child from Singapore in the absence of a prior written agreement, or by court order; and that the Child’s Australian passport was to be retained by the solicitors for the Wife, whilst the Child’s Singapore passport was to be retained by the solicitors for the Husband.

The Husband appealed against my interim joint custody and shared care and control orders and the costs that was awarded to the Wife for SUM 1327. Separately, the Husband also appealed against the cost order made against him for the withdrawal of his application in SUM 1115/2020 (“SUM 1115”). SUM 1115 was an application the Husband had filed on 4 April 2020 seeking, inter alia, a mandatory order that the Child be returned to her habitual residence in his parents’ home and an interim injunction to restrain the Wife from removing the Child from Singapore without his written approval. The Wife had taken the Child on 12 March 2020 to live with her in her apartment without informing the Husband. Prior to this, the Child was residing with the Husband in the Husband’s parents’ home.

I now set out the full grounds of my decision for the orders appealed against.

Brief Background

The Husband (aged 43) is a Singaporean and has his own business in Singapore. The Wife (aged 39) is an Australian citizen and a Singapore permanent resident.¹ She presently runs her own business in Singapore, Lxxx International Pte Ltd (“L Company”) trading in soft commodities.

The parties had an arranged marriage after a short 6-month, long distance courtship between India and Singapore. The marriage took place in Singapore in December 2008. Upon her marriage, the Wife relocated from India (where her family is based) to Singapore and lived with the Husband in his parents’ home (“the H Parents’ Home”).

Parties had difficulties in their marriage due to compatibility and other issues. They have lived apart since the July 2016 Incident. Parties had differing versions as to what happened during the July 2016 Incident and the intervening period of about three and a half years before the filing of the divorce in March 2020 and the two applications mentioned above.

As mentioned, the Husband sought a dismissal of the Wife’s entire SUM 1327. However, he did not file any application for interim custody, or care and control of the Child, but requested (in his written submissions) that the interim orders for custody, care and control of the Child “be finalised / confirmed” in his favour with reasonable supervised access to the Wife.²

The following affidavits were filed in SUM 1327: The Wife’s supporting affidavit for SUM 1327 of 3 June 2020 (refiled, with parts expunged as per Order of Court dated 11 November 2020) (“WA1”), her reply affidavit of 9 July 2020 (“WA2”), and her further affidavit of 9 October 2020 (“WA3”), and The Husband’s 2 reply affidavits of 25 June 2020 filed in SUM 1327 and SUM 1115 (“HA1” and “HA2” respectively) (in response to her WA1), and his further affidavit of 8 October 2020 (“HA3”).

Wife’s Case Marital Breakdown and the July 2016 Incident

According to the Wife, marital conflicts started in about 2014. She had discovered in October 2014 through the engagement of a firm of private investigators (“PI”) that the Husband was having improper association with another woman. The PI report was adduced in evidence in the Wife’s supporting affidavit WA1.³ At the same time, she was also having increasing difficulties living with the Husband’s family who were very controlling and exerted their opinions over the parties’ marriage, and after the Child was born, over the way the parties were bringing up the Child.

The Wife stated that by late 2015, the parties hardly communicated and there was no physical intimacy between them and by February 2016, their marriage had broken down and she did not associate herself as the Husband’s wife, even though parties continued to reside under the same roof in the H Parents’ Home. Then, she was already spending her daytime mostly in her own apartment rented in January 2016 as a SOHO (that is, office cum living space) (“Apartment”) to start working again on her own business there.⁴ The Child would be with her in the Apartment when the Child was not at her classes. The Child was just about 2 years old then. As the Apartment was a SOHO, it had condominium facilities such as a swimming pool for the Child’s swimming lessons, and an office layout for her business meetings. She had enrolled the Child at a pre-school and various infant enrichment classes from the age of 6 months old and had been accompanying the Child for all her classes.⁵

When the Wife was visiting her family in India with the Child between May and July 2016, she initiated discussions with the Husband on their divorce. She did not want the Child to grow up in the toxic environment that the H Parents’ Home had become and felt that “divorce would be better for them, as they could be amicable co-parents rather than bitter parties in a marriage”.⁶ When the Wife returned to Singapore on 9 July 2016 with the Child, she found herself facing an even more hostile home environment. The Husband and his family became very “verbally and emotionally abusive” to her, accusing her of walking out on the family and even of “abducting” the Child (amongst other things).⁷ She described the days between 9 July 2016 and 12 July 2016 as ugly ones.

July 2016 Incident

On the night of 12 July 2016 (about 9.30pm), there was a heated exchange between the parties and the Husband physically abused her. She called the police and reported it (G/20160712/0244).⁸ The police arrived and she had wanted to leave the H Parents’ Home with the Child but was prevented from doing so by the Husband’s father who grabbed her hand and would not let her get the Child. As she was afraid to remain alone in the home after what had happened, she left with the police without the Child, intending to return for the Child the next day. She was also afraid that if she insisted on taking the Child with her at the time, the Child might be “witness to more ill-treatment and pulling and shoving and this whole experience would be traumatising for the Child”. This was also the advice of the police as it was already late at night.⁹

The next day (13 July 2016), the Wife went back to the H Parents’ Home intending to take the Child with her to stay in her Apartment. But she was again prevented from doing so by the Husband’s family. They insisted that the Child remained in their home under their care and that she could have access to the Child at home whenever she wanted until she was ready to come home. The next month, August 2016, the Wife’s father came to Singapore to discuss the breakdown of her marriage with the Husband’s parents (as based on their traditional culture, this was regarded as a family matter to be discussed between the parents). The Husband’s parents were not ready to accept the marital breakdown and continued to insist on keeping the Child with them.¹⁰

The Wife stated that she was traumatised by the way the Husband’s family shouted and cried before the Child and felt that they were trying to “intimidate and control” her by their behaviour and keeping of the Child. Although she continued her efforts in the following months to have her Child stay with her, they were futile. She was only allowed to see the Child for a few hours under supervision at the home, and never allowed to have the Child spend a night with her in the comfort of her...