Yu Sau Ki Grace v Choo Kwong - Wah David

• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Hamidah Bte Ibrahim
• Judgment Date: 17 March 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGDC 10
• Citation: [2000] SGDC 10
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The Petitioner ( wife ) and the Respondent ( husband ) were married at the Registry of Marriages in Singapore on the 28/10/1985. There are 2 children to the marriage, both daughters, aged 9 and 5. The wife petitioned for the marriage to be dissolved on the ground that it had irretrievably broken down because of the husband’s unreasonable conduct. This was initially contested by the husband when he filed his answer and cross-petition. However, her petition eventually became uncontested when he withdrew his answer and cross-petition. A decree nisi was hence pronounced on the 22/01/1999 with the usual consequential order that the ancillaries be adjourned to be heard in chambers.

2. On the 24/01/2000, the ancillaries were heard before me and after hearing the parties, I made the following orders:-

1) Petitioner is granted custody, care and control of the 2 children of the marriage namely L and O with reasonable access to the Respondent as follows:

i) From 7:30 pm to 9:30 pm on any 2 weekdays from Monday to Friday and Respondent to give at least 1 day notice to the Petitioner and

ii) Every Sunday from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm ,

2) Respondent to pay $1,200 per month as maintenance for the 2 children only with effect 1/02/2000 and thereafter on the 1^st of each month.

3) Respondent to pay $100 per month as maintenance for the Petitioner with effect 1/02/2000 and thereafter on the 1^st of each month.

4) The matrimonial property at [address] is to be sold in the open market within 6 months and the proceeds less outstanding loan to HDB, expenses relating to sale, refund with interest to parties CPF’s accounts to be released absolutely to Petitioner.

5) Upon sale and refund to the Respondent’s CPF account, there shall be a charge on Respondent’s CPF monies in the sum of $70,000 in favour of the Petitioner.

6) Usual CPF clauses to apply.

7) Costs fixed at $1,000.

3. The wife has appealed against paragraphs 3,4 & 5 of this order while the husband has appealed against paragraphs 1,2,4 and 5.

4. The wife sought sole custody, care and control of the 2 daughters. The children are currently living with her in the matrimonial home. The husband had left them in August 1998 and since then the parties have been living apart. The wife’s counsel submitted that the 2 daughters, being only 9 and 5 years of age, were fairly young and attached to their mother. The wife works as a school teacher and typical of most working mothers, she had employed a maid to look after them while she is at work.

5. On the other hand, the husband’s stand on custody appeared to be somewhat confused. In his affidavit of 17/05/99, he said ( at paragraph 15 ) that the eldest daughter O was very attached to him and as such he wanted custody of this daughter. He was prepared to agree to L, the younger child, remaining with her mother. However, he did not set out any ground to demonstrate how the children’s best interests would be served if O were to be placed under his custody and why it was necessary to split up the children. Subsequently, in his affidavit of 25/8/1999 ( at paragraph 17 ) he asked for reasonable access to the 2 daughters only and thereby conceding that they should remain in the custody, care and control of their mother. This position was then changed in his last affidavit of 2/11/1999 wherein he asked for joint custody and at the hearing of the ancillaries this was his stand i.e. joint custody with care and control to the wife.

6....