Zaleha Bte Rahman v Chaytor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 232
• Docket Number: Maintenance Summons No 3175 of (Registrar's Appeal No 720071 of 2000)
• Date: 14 November 2000
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mary Edmonds (Chiang Wee & Partners)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 232
• Defendant Counsel: Mirza Namazie (as counsel) and Alice Yeo (Tan Peng Chin & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Appeal to High Court against maintenance order by district court,s 21(1)Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) -O 55C, O 55D Rules of Court,Appeals,ss 69, 77 Women's Charter (Cap 353),Whether leave to appeal required

: This is an appeal against a decision refusing leave to appeal from the district judge in Chambers to the High Court. It arose from an application by a wife for maintenance for herself and her daughter under the Women`s Charter (`the Charter`). The spouses are Muslims. Alan James Chaytor @ Mohammed Shah Azlan married Zaleha bte A Rahman on 10 December 1995 at the Registry of Muslim Marriages in Singapore. They have a daughter. She was born on 5 December 1996. In April this year the husband decided to end the marriage. To give effect to his decision he pronounced a talak . I need not state the reasons he cited in support of the talak . The wife does not dispute the pronouncement of the talak . She disagrees with the reasons asserted by the husband. She wants the Syariah Court to rule on the talak . That issue and all ancillary issues remain to be resolved by the Syariah Court.

Meanwhile, the wife on 16 June 2000 took out a summons under ss 69(1) and (2) of the Charter. It reads as follows:

(1) Any married woman whose husband neglects or refuses to provide her reasonable maintenance may apply to a District Court or a magistrate`s court and that court may, on due proof thereof, order the husband to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for her maintenance.

(2) A District Court or a magistrate`s court may, on due proof that a parent has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for his child who is unable to maintain himself, order that parent to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for the maintenance of that child.

The wife asserted that her husband had neglected and refused to maintain her and their four year old daughter. She said that before February 2000 the husband paid her a monthly maintenance of some $7,400. He also paid some household bills. For February, March and April 2000 he paid only $2,500 each month. In May 2000 he stopped paying even that. This prompted her to take out the maintenance summons.

The husband`s primary response to the summons was that the wife`s claim for maintenance for herself did not fall within s 69(1) of the Charter. She was not a wife any longer, he said. He wanted it dismissed. The summons was heard by a district judge. The judge declined to dismiss the summons. On 24 August 2000 she ordered the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of $1,500 for the wife and $1,000 for the child. The order in favour of the wife was to stand until the conclusion of the proceedings in the Syariah Court.

The wife was unhappy with the decision of the district judge. So she filed a notice of appeal on 30 August 2000. On the same day the district judge became aware of the appeal. At once she formed the view that the wife had no right of appeal and that leave was required. Accordingly the District Court Registry rejected the notice of appeal.

The wife`s lawyers wrote back differing with the district judge on the right of appeal. This was what she said:

With due respect, we beg to differ from the Honourable district judge`s indication that leave is required. In accordance with s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act leave is required when the amount in dispute or the subject matter is $50,000 or below. In the above matter, the amount claimed by the complainant for the maintenance of the child of the marriage is $2,367 a month and the amount awarded by the Honourable district judge is $1,000. As the child is presently about four years old, on the basis that the child is entitled to maintenance till she is 21 years old, ie for the next 17 years, the amount in dispute or subject matter is $278,868 ($1,367.00 x 12 x 17). Thus it far exceeds the threshold limit of $50,000 under s 21(1) and no leave is required.

The district judge desired to hear arguments on the issue. On 31 August 2000 the wife filed an application seeking leave to appeal to the High Court. The application was heard by the same district judge who made the order. She dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The wife has appealed to the High Court judge-in-chambers against the dismissal of the application for leave. I heard the wife`s appeal.

The husband too was unhappy with the district judge hearing the maintenance summons under s 69(1) of the Charter. He too wanted to appeal to the High Court. So he applied for leave to appeal. The district judge gave him leave to appeal on the jurisdiction issue. The husband`s appeal has not been heard and I am not concerned with it.

The district judge gave the grounds of her decision even though she was not required to do so. In her grounds she reaffirmed her decision that leave was required. She did not explain why. But it would appear that her decision was premised on the conclusion that the amount in dispute on the value of subject matter was below $50,000. The district judge then went on to consider the merits of the application.

The district judge referred to Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & Anor [1997] 3 SLR 489 which was cited by the husband`s counsel. This was a decision of the Court of Appeal. It was an appeal under s 34(2)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). That section provided that: `Except with the leave of the Court of Appeal or a judge, no appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal where the only issue in the appeal related to costs`. Yong Pung How CJ in a joint judgment of the Court of Appeal said at p 496:

There are at least three limbs which can be relied upon when leave to appeal is sought: (1) prima facie case of error; (2) question of general principle decided for the first time; and (3) question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of a higher tribunal would be to the public advantage.

The district judge said:

Only the first limb, that is whether there had been a prima facie case of error, was in issue. In coming to my decision, I took into consideration all the factors listed in s 69(4) of the Women`s Charter. I found

...