XWN v XWO

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 29 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] SGFC 142
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Parties: XWN,XWO

XWN v XWO

[2025] SGFC 142

MSS 2240/2023

XWN

XWO

Family Court

Phang Hsiao Chung

Family Law - Maintenance - Child

Family Law - Maintenance - Wife

Mr Clement Yap Ying Jie, Ms Jasmine Chang Jia Min and Ms Laura Eng Sing Joo (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) for the applicant/wife

Ms Peggy Sarah Yee May Kuen, Ms Audrey Liaw Shu Juan and Mr Jerome Tan (PY Legal LLC) for the respondent/husband.

29 December 2025

District Judge Phang Hsiao Chung:

Introduction

1. MSS 2240/2023 was an application under section 69 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) by a wife and mother of 4 children (the “Mother”) against her husband and the father of the children (the “Father”) for maintenance for herself and each of the 4 children (each a “Child” and collectively, the “Children”).

2. This case raises the question of the extent to which a sole breadwinner of a family, which is accustomed to a high standard of living, is obliged to maintain the family at that standard of living, after unilaterally deciding to change his lifestyle in a manner that reduces his income substantially.

Facts

The parties

3. The parties and their Children are Canadian nationals who moved to Singapore in December 2013.

4. The Father was a senior executive in the Singapore office of a multinational corporation (the “Singapore Employer”), and was employed on generous terms that included expatriate allowances. The Mother was a homemaker who had entered Singapore on a Dependant’s Pass linked to the Father’s Employment Pass.

5. The Children are:

• (a) a son born in 2006 (the “1st Child”), who studied at an international school (“International School A”) until he went abroad in September 2025 for university studies;

• (b) a son born in 2008 (the “2nd Child”), who studies at International School A;

• (c) a son born in 2011 (the “3rd Child”), who studies at a different international school (“International School B”); and

• (d) a daughter born in 2013 (the “4th Child”), who also studies at International School B.

Background

6. In August 2023, the Father unilaterally moved out of the family home to live with another woman (“W”).

7. Around that time, the Father offered to maintain the family’s lifestyle, and to pay the Mother $20,000 per month for the maintenance of the family, in addition to paying for the Children’s school fees, school bus fees, and the monthly rent of the family home. The Father subsequently reduced his offer to paying $11,000 per month, in addition to the Children’s school fees, school bus fees, and the monthly rent of the family home.

8. After the Father reduced financial support for the family in September 2023, the Mother commenced MSS 2240/2023 on 2 October 2023 to obtain maintenance for herself and the Children.

9. The Father resigned from the Singapore Employer on 9 October 2023, even though he would otherwise have continued to be employed on the same generous terms (which included expatriate allowances) until July 2024. The Father initially claimed that he was “compelled to leave” the Singapore Employer, but admitted during cross-examination that there was no evidence in his affidavit (of evidence in chief) to support this claim. The Father alleged instead that the Mother had gone on a “smear campaign”, that the Father was “questioned by [his] superiors about having an affair with a direct report and giving the person promotions and bonuses”, and that the Father was convinced that had he stayed longer, his employment would have been terminated because of the reputational damage caused by the Mother.

10. In January 2024, the Father left Singapore and moved to Canada. This halted the progress of MSS 2240/2023. After the Father failed to attend a Court Mention on 31 January 2024, a Warrant of Arrest was issued against him.

11. On 16 April 2024, the Mother commenced FC/D 1729/2024 to dissolve the parties’ marriage on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because the Father had committed adultery and the Mother found it intolerable to live with the Father. The Father applied to stay the divorce proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens, but the Father’s application was dismissed on 23 September 2024. After an Interim Judgment was granted in the divorce proceedings on 6 November 2024, the Father resumed participation in MSS 2240/2023, and the Warrant of Arrest was cancelled on 5 December 2024.

The parties’ cases

12. The Mother’s case is summarised in the closing submissions filed by her solicitors.

• (a) The Mother alleged that the Father had failed to provide reasonable maintenance for her and the 4 Children since August 2023, when the Father left the matrimonial home. She highlighted that the Father had admitted, during cross-examination, that he had not paid any sum of money to her between November 2023 and May 2025.

• (b) While the Mother admitted that the expenses claimed were higher than those of an average family in Singapore, she claimed that this was because of the high standard of living enjoyed by the family, and that the Father had initially offered to pay her a monthly allowance of $20,000 in addition to directly paying the Children’s school fees and school bus fees, and the family’s rent.

• (c) The Mother claimed that the Father was a man of substantial earning capacity and means, and had downplayed his current monthly income from his current employer (the “Canada Employer”). In addition to monthly income, the Father also stood to receive bonuses as high as CAD 309,375 to be paid in 2026. While employed by the Singapore Employer, the Father was earning an annual income of $860,193. Yet the Father voluntarily resigned from the Singapore Employer in October 2023, shortly after he was served with MSS 2240/2023, so as to avoid his maintenance obligations. The Father made a bare allegation that the Mother started a smear campaign against him and forced his resignation from the Singapore Employer, and did not produce a shred of evidence that the Mother had badmouthed him or contacted his colleagues/employers before his resignation on 9 October 2023.

• (d) The Mother claimed that the Father had sufficient financial resources to pay the maintenance sought by the Mother. The assets in the Father’s sole name were slightly under $2 million. The Mother claimed that the Father had transferred sums totalling more than $1 million to W, with a view to depleting his assets to defeat a maintenance claim.

• (e) In response to the Father’s suggestion that the family move to Canada, where schooling and healthcare are free, the Mother pointed out that only public schooling is free, and observed that the school fees of private schools in Canada are similar to international school fees in Singapore. The Mother also highlighted that the Children had been residing and studying in Singapore for most of their lives, that the 3rd and 4th Children had never lived in Canada, and that the 1st and 2nd Children had not lived in Canada since 2011.

• (f) Since May 2025, the Father paid approximately $5,500 per month as maintenance for the Mother and the 4 Children. (The actual amount transferred by the Father each month was CAD 6,000.) This was insufficient. The Mother observed that the Father had claimed that his own expenses were CAD 6,810 per month.

13. The Father’s case is summarised in the closing submissions filed by his solicitors.

• (a) The Father claimed that there was lack of clarity in what the Mother was claiming, and that he was not made aware of the expenses incurred. The Father also claimed that the expenses incurred by the Mother and the Children were inflated, unreasonable and/or “duplicitous”.

  • (i) The Father highlighted, for instance, the Mother’s expenditure on her nails and cosmetic treatments, braces for the 1st Child, flights and vacations, and Formula One race tickets.

  • (ii) The Father highlighted that the Mother, despite having a car, claimed taxi expenses of $400 per month, as well as Grab transfer expenses of $1,080 per month, MRT expenses of $365 per month, and school bus expenses of $500 per month, for the Children.

  • (iii) The Father pointed out that the Mother made dubious and unsubstantiated claims for the household, such as $750 per month for “Devices wear and tear / replacement”, to artificially drive up the purported family expenses.

  • (iv) The Mother claimed CAD 19,309.53 for medical insurance. The Father was not informed of this expense before it was incurred, and did not consent to this expense.

  • (v) The Father also complained that after the lease at the family’s previous accommodation expired, the Mother and Children moved into more expensive accommodation, resulting in an increase in the monthly rent from $6,500 to $8,000, and that the Mother was “so cavalier in her spending” that she overpaid her landlord $5,000 in rent on 12 August 2024.

• (b) The Father disputed the Mother’s claim of hardship necessitating interim maintenance. The Father highlighted that the Mother had transferred CAD 169,800 from the parties’ joint account to her personal account. The Father also highlighted that the Mother had declared, in her Affidavit of Means filed on 7 March 2025 for the divorce proceedings, that she had at least 11 bank accounts in Canada, 2 DBS Bank accounts and 1 Citibank account. The Father claimed that the Mother had a Canadian private banking account, and that this implied that the Mother had at least CAD 1 million in investable assets. The Father claimed that the Mother had drawn down the total in her bank accounts from $858,695.97 to $222,682.27 in less than 12 months. The Father also claimed that the Mother could obtain loans from her parents, sister and friends.

• (c) The Father claimed that it was unreasonable for the Mother to refuse to return to Canada with the Children.

  • (i) The Father claimed that the parties’ stay in Singapore was temporary and premised on his job in Singapore, and that the parties had all along...