Vxm v Vxn

• Judge: Debbie Ong J
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2021
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Registrar's Appeal from the Family Justice Courts No 15 of 2021

VXM

and

VXN

[2021] SGHCF 37

Debbie Ong J

Registrar's Appeal from the Family Justice Courts No 15 of 2021

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

Family Law — Maintenance — Child — Wife withdrawing $282,000 from parties' joint bank account after leaving matrimonial home and before interim judgment of divorce — Whether wife had to show neglect or refusal in application for interim maintenance — Whether husband had neglected or refused to provide maintenance by stating that $282,000 should not be used by wife for rent — Sections 69 and 113 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)

Family Law — Maintenance — Wife — Wife withdrawing $282,000 from parties' joint bank account after leaving matrimonial home and before interim judgment of divorce — Whether wife had to show neglect or refusal in application for interim maintenance — Whether husband had neglected or refused to provide maintenance by stating that $282,000 should not be used by wife for rent — Sections 69 and 113 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) The Wife had to show that the Husband had neglected or refused to maintain her and the children in her application for interim maintenance, even if the rationale of Prasenjit was accepted for final ancillary orders on maintenance: at [5] and [6].

(2) The sum of $282,000 was withdrawn by the Wife in end July 2020, when divorce proceedings were imminent but prior to the IJ date of 19 March 2021. During this time, parties could use what would be matrimonial assets for reasonable, daily, run-of-the-mill family expenses, but they could not spend substantial sums without the consent of the other spouse. The Wife was not entitled to refuse to use the funds she had access to and then claim that the Husband had entirely neglected to provide reasonable maintenance, especially when the Husband had agreed to the use of those funds. The Husband, having clearly asked the Wife to use the $282,000 for reasonable expenses, could not be said to have wholly refused to provide maintenance: at [8] to [10].

(3) The reasonable path was for the Wife to use what was reasonably needed from the fund of $282,000 and communicate with the Husband on the needs and expenses. She would have to return to the pool substantial sums which were determined not to be run-of-the-mill expenses. The Wife submitted that she needed to know how much she was entitled to spend, as she would have to bear any expenses subsequently adjudged not to be reasonable out of her share of the assets, and it would be unfair to her if the court did not adjudicate now on what sums could be spent. The court, however, did not see how this was unfair to the Wife when she was permitted to use the moneys for reasonable expenses: at [12].

(4) At this interim stage, the court did not have the full means to make a thorough investigation of the parties' financial matters or their lifestyles, which it would have to examine thoroughly at the ancillary matters (“AM”) stage. Thus, even if the court were to now decide what constituted reasonable expenses for the Wife, it would still have to revisit this question at the AM hearing. In making final AM orders on maintenance, the court also had a wide power to order maintenance to commence from a date it considered fair: at [13].

(5) While the Husband could not be said to have entirely failed to provide maintenance, as he had agreed that the sum of $282,000 could be used for reasonable expenses, he had expressly stated that the moneys should not be used for rent. The issue on the present facts was whether reasonable accommodation had been provided. In the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable enough for the Wife to live separately from the Husband now that the marriage had broken down and to live with the children in their own apartment: at [17] and [19].

(6) As the Husband had not entirely refused to provide maintenance, it was not appropriate to make a full monthly maintenance order as sought by the Wife. The Wife was allowed to use the $282,000 for reasonable family expenses, for which she should make proper accounting. As the parties disputed specifically on whether rent should be provided, the court ordered that the Husband provide $9,500 for the accommodation expenses of the Wife and children. The Wife could use this sum from the fund of $282,000 that she had access to: at [20].

[Observation: The approach towards resolution set out at [12]–[13] was consistent not only with the law but with the adoption of therapeutic justice; it avoided unnecessary litigation and the intervention of the court by adjudication at every turn of the divorce journey: at [14].]

Case(s) referred to

AMW v AMZ [2011] 3 SLR 955 (refd)

Lee Bee Kim Jennifer v Lim Yew Khang Cecil [2005] SGHC 209 (refd)

Prasenjit K Basu v Viniti Vaish [2003] SGDC 303 (distd)

TCT v TCU [2015] 4 SLR 227 (folld)

TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 (refd)

UHA v UHB [2020] 3 SLR 666 (refd)

VRJ v VRK [2021] SGHCF 9 (folld)

Facts

The appellant (the “Husband”) and the respondent (the “Wife”) were married on 4 June 2011. On 24 July 2020, the Wife left the matrimonial home with the parties' two children. A few days later, the Wife's solicitors informed the Husband that the Wife had withdrawn $282,000 from the parties' joint account and that she undertook not to dissipate this sum pending the parties' “further discussion on how to move things forward”. On 4 August 2020, the Wife filed FC/OSG 115/2021 for, inter alia, interim maintenance from the Husband for their two children.

The...