fc_judgments: 15
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 84c5d21d63d5aa6bde07a29922fabfdce918ed45 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Maintenance \u2013 Child",
"Family Law \u2013 Maintenance \u2013 Wife"
] |
2024-02-06 | Family Court | Maintenance Summons No. 2245 of 2023 | WUC v WUD | [2024] SGFC 10 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F31024-SSP.xml | [
"Imran H Khwaja, Thaddaeus Aaron Tan and Chow Hai Man (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the complainant",
"Lee Weiming Andrew (PDLegal LLC) for the respondent"
] |
2024-02-29T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Tan Zhi Xiang | <root><head><title>WUC v WUD</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WUC <em>v</em> WUD </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31024-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 10</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Maintenance Summons No. 2245 of 2023</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">06 February 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Tan Zhi Xiang </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Imran H Khwaja, Thaddaeus Aaron Tan and Chow Hai Man (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the complainant; Lee Weiming Andrew (PDLegal LLC) for the respondent </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> WUC — WUD </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Child</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Wife</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">6 February 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Magistrate Tan Zhi Xiang:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The parties (whom I will refer to as the “Wife” and the “Husband”), who were Indian citizens, married in India in 2002.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> The Wife stopped working in 2005 when the elder child was born. The family relocated in Singapore in 2016. The Husband held an Employment Pass while the Wife and children (18 and 14) were dependents under the Husband’s Employment Pass. <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The Wife applied against the Husband for maintenance for herself and her two children. At the conclusion of the hearing, I held largely in favour of the Wife, as the Husband’s evidence was bare and largely unsupported. The Husband has since filed an appeal.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Parties’ evidence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 Both parties were represented by counsel, who consented to have the hearing proceed in chambers without oral testimony and cross-examination. I note with disapproval the Husband’s filing of the reply affidavit and written submissions the day before the trial (26 December 2023) at 11.36pm, long after they were both due – the reply affidavit was due on 6 December 2023, while the submissions were due on 18 December 2023.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> The Court was not informed, nor was leave sought, to file the reply affidavit and submissions out of time. This was regrettable. The affidavit was also filed in the form of a solicitor’s cover affidavit. As of the date of these written Grounds, the Husband has not filed his affidavit in the proper form.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Further, the reply affidavit contained mostly bare assertions, spanning over just four pages of substantive text. This was despite his counsel seeking leave to file a reply affidavit at the mention on 16 November 2023 on the basis that he would like to respond to the allegations in the Wife’s affidavit.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> Thus, the Wife’s evidence was largely met with unhelpful bare denials.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 I now turn to and briefly summarise the Wife’s evidence. In 2021, the Wife received letters from the Husband’s solicitors on the topic of divorce. However, the Husband continued to provide for the family. From early 2022, the Husband started to meet with the family again and returned home every week.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 In 2023, the Husband’s lawyers wrote to Wife again on the topic of divorce. He limited communication with his family thereafter. From July 2023, the Husband stopped providing for the family. In the same month, he wrote to the Wife, stating that his salary was cut to $18,000 a month and that they had to return to India. He also terminated the rental agreement of the apartment where the Wife and the children lived. The Wife signed a fresh tenancy agreement so that she could continue to stay in the same apartment. In addition, in an email to the Wife, he wrote that the Wife’s and the children’s passes will be cancelled.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> The Husband also wrote to the school of the younger child to withdraw him on the basis that the child will be moving back to India. Similarly, the Wife wrote to the school separately, and successfully had the son re-enrolled.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The Wife exhibited various correspondence in support of her evidence. This was in contrast to the Husband’s bare reply affidavit.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Preliminary objection</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I turn to a preliminary objection. The Husband stated for the first time in his reply affidavit filed one day before trial that the marriage was void, and that on this basis, the Court could not make an order for maintenance.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> Nevertheless, at the time of the hearing, the Husband had not initiated nullity proceedings, nor did he tender any evidence in these proceedings that the marriage was void. On these grounds alone, the preliminary objection could not stand.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 For completeness, I address the submission that the Court could not in principle make an order for maintenance. Counsel for the Husband cited <em>ADP v ADQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/65246-M.xml')">[2009] SGDC 489</a> in support of this submission. That decision was however reversed by the Court of Appeal in <em>ADP v ADQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2012] 2 SLR 0143.xml')">[2012] 2 SLR 143</a> (“<em>ADP v ADQ</em>”), where the Court held that it had the power to order the division of assets and maintenance in void marriages under Part 10 of the Women’s Charter 1961. It was of concern that a decision which was reversed on appeal was cited to me, with no reference to the appellate Court’s decision. For completeness, I note that <em>ADP v ADQ</em> was not a case like the present one where a spouse sought maintenance under Part 8 of the Women’s Charter 1961. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to address this point given that the Husband had not even begun to prove that the marriage was void.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance of the Wife and Children</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The law</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 A complainant must first prove that the respondent has neglected to provide reasonable maintenance. The Court will also assess the quantum for maintenance, considering factors at s 69(4) of the Women’s Charter 1961. Further, Professor Leong Wai Kum has written in <em>Elements of Family Law in Singapore</em>, LexisNexis, 3<sup>rd</sup> Edition, 2018 at paragraphs 12.111 and 12.113:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The author suggests that the maintenance of a wife during marriage should be appreciated as the provision of emergency financial help so that the goal in assessing her maintenance must be to ensure that her basic needs are met to the extent which the husband is able to meet them. The same must be true of maintenance of a child by her parent… The relationships… between the child and her parent… are continuing. Intervention by the court into such continuing relationships should be as minimally invasive as possible.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">…</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Such reported cases as there are demonstrate that the amounts ordered tend to be fairly modest. The courts use the law of maintenance to order the defendant to meet the child’s modest needs to the extent that she can…</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 At the same time, the standard of living is relevant when the Court determines maintenance: s 69(4) of the Women’s Charter 1961. Thus, what amounts to “basic needs” differs according to the standard of living of each family. The maintenance ordered does not need to be limited to basic sustenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 Importantly, the Courts adopt a “budget” approach on a broad-brush basis when assessing maintenance: see <em>WBU v WBT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29255-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 3</a> at [10], [30] and [31]. This is not an exercise in checking off receipts.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Decision</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Neglect</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 The Wife’s evidence that he had not paid maintenance since July 2023 was not disputed by the Husband. The Husband wrote in his reply affidavit:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">my change in circumstances since (i.e. a reduction in my fixed monthly salary) plus additional necessary expenses of rent, utilities, personal expenses, credit card repayments and taxes (as set out in pages 13 to 16 of my Respondent’s Bundle of Documents) do not allow me to continue maintaining the family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 As I had found that the Husband’s change in circumstances was self-induced (see immediately below), I found that the Husband had neglected to provide maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Husband’s income and earning capacity</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 A key plank in the Husband’s case, apparent from above, was that he could no longer afford to pay maintenance because his income had been reduced to about $18,000 a month. His income tax Notices of Assessment of 2021 and 2022 stated that his annual income exceeded $1 million.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> However, no explanation was given at all as to why there was such a drastic drop in his income. The Wife’s undisputed evidence was that the Husband had deliberately changed employers.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> At the hearing, his counsel confirmed that he had no instructions and that it was a “personal decision”. Since the Husband had not explained why he had chosen to take such a large pay-cut, I found that the reduction in income was self-induced. Thus, in determining reasonable maintenance, I took into account his previous salary. Indeed, a paying party’s earning capacity is relevant, as stated at s 69(4)(<em>b</em>) of the Women’s Charter 1961.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Wife’s income and earning capacity</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 I also did not consider it reasonable for the Husband to expect the Wife to return to the job market quickly after being a housewife from 2005. His submission that the Wife was living off him<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> was a plain attempt at minimising her non-financial contributions to the family, which the Courts have time and again disapproved.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Assessment of quantum</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 In assessing maintenance, I declined to consider the Husband’s proposal that the Wife and children move back to India. His case was that parties should move back to India because of his reduced earnings. Given that I had found that his reduction in income (even if true) was self-induced, I could not accept this submission.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 Counsel for the Wife confirmed that her client’s final lists of expenses were set out in her written submissions. She sought $9,900 for herself (including $3,600 for renting the apartment), $9,200 for her elder child (including $5,042 in school fees) and $11,500 for her younger child (including $5,800 in school fees), as well as specific reimbursement for expenses incurred for the family dog and for monies borrowed to meet expenses.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Considering the principles set out above at [10] to [12] above, I found that the list of expenses the Wife had set out in her written submissions to be on the high side. For instance, $1,500 on grooming and spa and $750 on entertainment a month could not be said to be a sum that is necessarily to fulfil her basic needs. Similarly, it was not easy to see why it would be necessary for teenagers to spend about $1,000 each on clothing, personal grooming and entertainment, especially when a separate sum of $667 each had been set aside for dining out.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 In calculating maintenance, I also split the monthly rent of $3,600 between the Wife and the two children, as that reflected the sum each needed more accurately, given that they all stayed in the same household. I also took the view that it would be preferable for the school-related fees and expenses of the children to be borne on an ad-hoc basis, especially as the elder-daughter’s university arrangements appeared to be fluid.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 As stated at [12] above, a broad-brush approach would be appropriate. I also note that the Husband did not dispute each specific expense listed by the Wife, but made the broad point that he could not afford to pay because of his alleged reduced earnings. Hence, I do not propose to list down each specific expense. Bearing in mind everything above, including $1,200 each for rent, and applying a broad-brush approach, I ordered the Husband the pay the Wife monthly maintenance of $5,700 for herself and $4,200 each for the two children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 In addition, I ordered the Husband to pay:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_a"></a>(a) any school fees, tuition fees, fees associated with enrichment classes and co-curricular activities for both children.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_b"></a>(b) one set of return economy class tickets to Canada annually on a full-service airline when the daughter starts school in Canada.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_c"></a>(c) the son’s outstanding school fees.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 As alluded above, since many of the above expenses were ad-hoc, it would be more reasonable for the Husband to pay them as they were incurred.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 I also backdated maintenance to July 2023 as the Husband did not dispute that he had failed to pay maintenance since July 2023. I did not think that the maintenance ordered, including backdated maintenance, was unreasonable given the Husband’s earning capacity. I did not provide separately for the Wife’s debts incurred for the purposes of providing for herself and the children, as I had already ordered backdated maintenance, and doing so would involve double-counting. I also did not provide separately for expenses relating to the family’s late pet dog, as the sum for backdated maintenance was already rather substantial.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Costs</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I ordered costs at $3,000 to be paid by the Husband to the Wife. This was on the low side given the Court attendances, affidavits and submissions filed, and the fact that the Wife was substantially granted what she had sought. Given the Husband’s conduct, especially his late filing of the reply affidavit and submissions, I was prepared to grant more.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Wife’s AEIC at paras 5 to 7.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Ibid at paras 9 and 13.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Minute sheet of the mention on 16 November 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Ibid.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Ibid at paras 17 and 20.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Ibid at paras 33 to 46.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Ibid at paras 47 to 49.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Husband’s reply affidavit at paras 5 to 8.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Husband’s reply affidavit at para 16.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Husband’s bundle of documents at pp 22 and 23.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Wife’s reply affidavit at para 5.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Wife’s written submissions at para 12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Wife’s written submissions at paras 38 to 44.</p></div></content></root> | 1287 |
Links from other tables
- 2 rows from _item in fc_judgments_version