WGV v WGU

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jason Gabriel Chiang
• Judgment Date: 03 October 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGFC 75
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Maintenance Summons No 1567 of 2021
• Published date: 07 October 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 01 June 2022,30 June 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms. Sarah-Mae Nithya Thomas and Ms Hilary Rupawalla (Sarah-Mae Thomas LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Kelvin David Tan Sia Khoon and Ms Sara Ng Qian Hui (Vicki Heng Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Women's Charter,Maintenance,Maintenance of Child,Wife Maintenance
• Citation: [2022] SGFC 75

District Judge Jason Gabriel Chiang: Introduction

MSS 1567/2021 (“MSS 1567”) was the Complainant Wife’s (the “Wife’s”) application for interim maintenance for herself and parties’ teenage son (the “Child”), from the Respondent Husband (the “Husband”) under sections 69(1) and (2) of the Women’s Charter, as well as for an accounting of arrears for maintenance backdated to March 2020 and also accounting for certain payments made by the Wife for utilities purportedly for the Husband.

Facts The parties

The Wife is Japanese, working as an executive assistant at an embassy in Singapore, with a fixed monthly nett salary of S$3,500.00. The Husband is Singaporean and works as a Senior Loss Prevention Officer in the hotel industry, earning a take-home salary of S$2,140.00. The Husband is represented by lawyers appointed by the Legal Aid Bureau.

They married in Singapore on 11 November 2005. The Child was born in 2006. At the time of hearing MSS 1567, the Child was 15+ years old, and studying in secondary school, preparing for his “O” Levels.

Background to the dispute

On 30 March 2020, the Wife filed an application for a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) for herself and the Child against the Husband, in relation to an incident of family violence a few days prior, which resulted in the Wife and Child moving out of the Matrimonial Home. On 8 May 2020, the Husband consented to a PPO in favour of the Wife and the Child.

On 12 July 2021, the Wife then filed MSS 1567 for interim child and wife maintenance, amongst other things. On 20 August 2021, the Husband filed an application for the revocation of the PPO. Then on 8 October 2021, the wife filed for divorce against the Husband. The 3 matters were docketed to me.

The Husband and the Wife underwent mediation for all 3 matters. Parties were able to reach an agreement on the withdrawal of the Husband’s application for the revocation of PPO, which was withdrawn on 1 March 2022. Parties also reached an agreement on the grounds of divorce and Interim Judgment was granted by me on the Wife’s amended claim on 21 March 2022. The parties attempted further mediation but were unable to reach an agreement in relation to interim maintenance and the ancillary matters.

Parties had agreed for MSS 1567 to be converted into a chambers hearing instead of a trial, as both parties were represented by lawyers. The Wife had already filed her affidavit for MSS 1567 in October 2021. On 1 March 2022, directions were provided for the Husband’s 1st affidavit to be filed by 27 April 2022, and then parties were due to file their reply affidavits on 11 May 2022 and for submissions to be exchanged on 27 May 2022. The affidavits were duly filed and exchanged, but while the Husband’s submissions were filed on time, the Wife’s submissions were a day late, as parties were attempting one last mediation on the due date of submissions.

MSS 1567 was heard for half a day on 1 June 2022, where both sides made their oral arguments. There were 14 outstanding issues which were identified for parties to follow up on. I directed for the further submissions and affidavit to be filed and exchanged by 22 June 2022, which was complied with. On 30 June 2022, before the 2nd hearing, the Wife filed a letter enclosing further supporting documents for certain incurred expenses.

I heard rebuttals on 30 June 2022, and rendered my decision thereafter on the same day. I ordered that:- there shall be no interim wife maintenance; the Husband shall pay a monthly sum of S$950.00 to the Wife for the Child’s maintenance, commencing 1 July 2022, and thereafter on the 1st day of every month to the Wife’s designated bank account; and arrears for backdated maintenance are assessed to be S$19,640 for the period of March 2020 to June 2022, and that this sum would be taken into account for the division of matrimonial assets for ancillary matters in the divorce proceedings, which were still outstanding as at the reporting of this decision and has been fixed to be heard by me.

Being dissatisfied with my decision, the Husband filed this appeal on 6 July 2022. As the Husband was legally aided, the normal security for costs for an appeal was waived. In the circumstances, I set out the grounds of my decision.

The parties’ cases

In MSS 1567/2021, the Wife was initially seeking S$2,000.00 for Wife Maintenance to cover rental expenses and a further Child Maintenance of S$1,000.00, on a monthly basis. Upon further clarification, the Wife adjusted her position such that S$1,000.00 of the amount claimed for Wife Maintenance for rental expenses was attributed to the Child. In the circumstances, the Wife clarified that she was seeking S$1,000.00 for Wife Maintenance and S$2,000.00 for Child Maintenance.

The Wife was also seeking that any maintenance order be backdated to March 2020, when she and the Child moved out of the Matrimonial Home and the Husband purportedly stopped supporting them financially. She also sought for these arrears to be offset with the maintenance payments of S$250.00 that the Husband had been making on a monthly basis, which were claimed to be insufficient. The Wife was also seeking reimbursement of payments of S$5,025.69 that she purportedly made for utilities for the Matrimonial Home, during a period of time that the Husband was the sole occupant, before he took over the payments for the same.

The Husband, on the other hand, was only offering a monthly sum of S$250.00 for the Child and disagreed with the request for Wife Maintenance. The Husband had initially provided S$200.00 a month to the Child directly and in March 2022, increased this amount to S$250.00. In general, the Husband objected to the provision of monies for the rental expenses of both the Wife and the Child.

The Husband also took the position that it would be unfair to account for arrears for backdated maintenance or reimbursements as he had been providing some sums during this period of either S$200.00 or S$250.00.

Issues to be determined

In the circumstances, the issues for determination in this case were: whether the Court should accept the Wife’s and the Child’s rental expenses for new accommodations for the purposes of interim maintenance; interim child maintenance; interim wife maintenance; and whether interim maintenance should be backdated to March 2020, and if so, the accounting of any such arrears or need for reimbursements.

Issue 1: Wife’s & Child’s New Accommodations

The Wife was seeking that the Husband pay for the full sum of the rental expenses for her and her child’s accommodations of S$2,000.00 (being S$1,000.00 for her and S$1,000.00 for the Child). Further to paragraph 4 above, the Wife and the Child had moved out of the Matrimonial Home shortly after an event of family violence on 25 March 2020. The Husband consented to a PPO on the basis of this event of family violence.

The Husband argued that they should not be entitled to claim any such accommodation expenses as part of spousal or child maintenance. The Husband’s objection to such expense was premised on an interpretation of the case of VBG v VBH [2019] SGFC 109 (“VBG v VBH”), where the wife and children had similarly moved out of the matrimonial home after an alleged event of family violence. The Husband argued that in VBG v VBH, the rental expense was deemed to be “unreasonable to impose on the Father” at [68]. This was on the basis that the wife in VBG v VBH, had been living with her parents initially and had not informed the husband before incurring rental expenses. It was held that had he been informed of this, alternative arrangements could have been made whereby the wife and children could have returned home to stay and he could have moved out and rented a place for less than the amount of S$4,800.00, which the wife was claiming. It is noteworthy that this case did not set a precedent that all rental expenses would be unreasonable to impose on the other party as part of maintenance, but that it was deemed unreasonable in this particular fact scenario.

Notably, in this case, the Wife and the Child had vacated the Matrimonial Home on 27 March 2020 to reside with friends over the circuit breaker period, but actually returned to the Matrimonial Home in June 2020 to reside for a period of about 3 months, when the Husband had vacated the premises upon the Wife’s request. The Wife and Child continued to reside in the Matrimonial Home between June and September 2020. The Wife reached an agreement with the Husband that she would not change the locks if he would only return to the Matrimonial Home if he had informed her in advance and she consented to his return. However, the Husband unilaterally came back to the Matrimonial Home on 2 July 2020 and the police were called down. Subsequently, the Husband moved back into the Matrimonial Home and the Wife and the Child vacated the same to stay at the Wife’s friend’s home in the middle of September 2020. Thereafter, the Child did attempt to access the Matrimonial Home, but found the locks to have been changed. Requests were made to the Husband, but the Child and the Wife were unable to access the Matrimonial Home then. I also accepted that the Wife sent multiple letters and emails to the Husband on their expenses, which included the rental expense, and their need for financial assistance. Hence, the circumstances in this case were quite different from VBG v VBH.

In this case, it appears evident, that the Wife, who had no family within Singapore, had no other alternative but to find alternative accommodations. The Husband insisted on occupying the Matrimonial Home and the Wife could not rely on the good favour of friends to house her for free. The Husband sought that the Wife and Child return to the Matrimonial Home to stay with him, but this would not have been a tenable arrangement given the divorce proceedings, which is elaborated on below.

I do further...