fc_judgments: 22
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | b3d31082a51361dffd7d5e08ad33dc0fbedbf933 | [
"Divorce \u2013 Division of assets \u2013 Custody care control and access of children \u2013 Maintenance of children \u2013 Maintenance of former spouse"
] |
2024-03-14 | Family Court | Divorce No 4147/2021 | WVL v WVM | [2024] SGFC 16 | 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%2F31272-SSP.xml | [
"Chia Kia Boon (Robert Wang & Woo LLP) for the Plaintiff/Husband. Soo Poh Huat (Soo Poh Huat & Co) for the Defendant/Wife."
] |
2024-04-02T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Sheik Mustafa Abu Hassan | <root><head><title>WVL v WVM</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WVL <em>v</em> WVM </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31272-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 16</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">Divorce No 4147/2021</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">14 March 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"> Sheik Mustafa Abu Hassan </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"> Chia Kia Boon (Robert Wang & Woo LLP) for the Plaintiff/Husband. Soo Poh Huat (Soo Poh Huat & Co) for the Defendant/Wife. </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"> WVL — WVM </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Divorce</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Division of assets</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Custody care control and access of children</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance of children</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance of former spouse</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">14 March 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Sheik Mustafa Abu Hassan:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 In this case, the Husband is the Plaintiff, and the Wife is the Defendant. They had married in April 2016. An interim judgment dissolving the marriage was decreed in November 2021 based on unreasonable behaviour of the Wife. The marriage had lasted 5 years and 7 months.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 There are 2 children of the marriage. It is agreed that the parties share joint custody of the children. The outstanding issues for me to decide on are the care, control, access and maintenance of the children, the maintenance of the Wife, as well as the division of property between the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">THE CHILDREN</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 In this section, I shall refer to the Husband as “the Father” and to the Wife as “the Mother”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 There are 2 children. The 1<sup>st</sup> child is 7 years old, and the second is 5 years old. They are both boys.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The parties agree to having joint custody of both children. The issue is who shall care and control the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The Father claims to be the primary caregiver of the children. He is a taxi driver. He fetches them from childcare/school every day, prepares meals for them, eats with them, gives them showers and goes through their schoolwork or play with them. He brings the children out on weekends when he does not work. He brings them for medical treatments and attends meetings with teachers especially regarding one of the children’s speech delay and autism. He handles the administrative matters with the school. The Father alleges that the Mother had committed violence against the children, but his application for a personal protection order on their behalf was dismissed by this Court. The Father also argues that the Mother is likely to return to Vietnam and take the children with her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The Mother claims that she is the primary caregiver of the children. She also claims to prepare the children and sends them to childcare. She discusses with their teachers. In the evenings after work she spends time with the children and puts them to bed. She claims that the Father is not interested in the children. The Mother also applied for a personal protection order against the Father, but her complaint was also dismissed by this Court.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 I heard counsel for the parties, and I ordered for a child custody evaluation to be conducted. I have now received the report of the evaluators and consider it together with the other evidence already placed before me in the parties’ affidavits. Because many of the interviews conducted during the custody evaluation took place under a promise and expectation of non-disclosure, I will not make specific references of the contents of the report.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Based on the report and the evidence before me, I arrive at the following findings:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_1"></a>1. Both parents are involved in the caregiving of the children. They both love the children and are familiar with their temperaments and needs.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_2"></a>2. The 1<sup>st</sup> child is diagnosed with autism since he was 3 years old. His autism is mild, and he is coping well academically. The 2<sup>nd</sup> child appears to have no special needs.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_3"></a>3. The children had expressed to the evaluator that they wish to live with the Mother. However, this attachment between them and the Mother is a result of their triangulation, and that they were simply reflecting the Mother’s emotional needs. They are parentified in this regard. If they are placed in the Mother’s care, it is likely that the parentification will become more entrenched and their development affected.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_4"></a>4. On the other hand, the children do have a healthy attachment to the Father. The Father’s parenting is firm, but also warm. He is observed to be able to set boundaries and regular routines for the children and managing their behaviours whereas the Mother has difficulties doing so.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_5"></a>5. The Father already has a fully paid-up home to accommodate the children, whereas the Mother’s accommodation is uncertain, since she rents a bedroom in a 4-room flat.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 I find that there is no reason to not order the parents to have joint custody of the children. In any case, they have agreed to this. Both parents have the best interest of the children at heart, and I believe that they will co-parent effectively.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 I find that it will be in the welfare of the children that they be in the care and control of the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The children must have access with the Mother. There is no evidence to show that it would be against their welfare to have access with the Mother. I shall adopt an access arrangement recommended by the evaluator, as I find that it is fair and workable.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 The Mother requests that the Father not know her address claiming that she fears he will harass her there. Parents who share joint custody of children, in order to exercise their parental responsibilities, must at least be aware of the children’s whereabouts when the children are with the other parent. The accusations of family violence have been dismissed. I find that there is no more basis to prevent the Father from knowing the Mother’s address because that is where the children will be residing at during access.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 I therefore conclude that it is in the welfare of the children to order as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_1"></a>1. By consent, both parents shall have joint custody of the children.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_2"></a>2. The children shall be in the care and control of the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_3"></a>3. The Father shall provide the children with access to the Mother as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_a"></a>a. On weekends alternating between the following:</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_a-p4_A"></a>(A) First weekend: Friday after school to Monday morning. The Mother will collect the children from their schools on Friday and she shall send the children to school on Monday; and</p> <p class="Judg-4"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_a-p4_B"></a>(B) Other weekend: Friday after school to Saturday evening at 8pm, when the Father shall collect the children.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_b"></a>b. During school holidays, every Friday from 5pm on Friday to Saturday 9pm, when the Father shall collect the children.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_c"></a>c. Every Wednesday after school until 8:30pm. The Mother shall collect the children from school and shall return them to the Father by 8:30pm.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_d"></a>d. The children shall also have access to the Mother via electronic means during non-access periods, and the Father shall have access to the children via electronic means during access periods.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_e"></a>e. The children shall have access with the Mother during the first half of school vacations. The Mother shall collect the children from school at the start of the school vacation and the Father shall collect them on the second Saturday at 9pm.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_f"></a>f. For Chinese New Year, the children shall be with the Father on the first day, and the children shall have access with the Mother on the second day from 9am to 6pm.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_g"></a>g. For public holidays other than Chinese New Year, the children shall have access with the Mother on alternate public holidays from 9am to 6pm.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_h"></a>h. The parents shall not comment about each other in the children’s presence.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_i"></a>i. Neither the Father nor the Mother shall by himself/herself, his/her agents or his/her servants, bring the children, out of Singapore without the prior written consent of the other or an Order of Court.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_14-p2_3-p3_j"></a>j. Both parents and the children shall attend counselling at FAM@FSC as well as the Children-in-Between Programme.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance of the children </p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 On maintenance for the children, the Father seeks the Mother to pay $778.80 a month. The Father says that the children’s monthly expenses are $1,180.00. He argues that the Mother ought to bear 66%, or $778.80.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Mother says that the children’s expenses are $420.00 for each child. This does not include housing, so she asks for $600.00 a month each to cover their housing.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The children are 6 and 4 years old at the time of hearing.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Means of parents</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The Father is a taxi driver claiming to earn a take home income of $1,800.00 a month. The Mother disputes this and claims that he earns about $5,000.00 a month. She points out that the Father did not produce evidence from his taxi company to show his monthly collections.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 In this regard, I find that the Father’s income tax assessment is prima facie proof that his income is $18,000.00 a year, which is $1,500.00 a month, lower than what the Father claims. I therefore accept $1,800.00 a month as the Father’s income.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The Mother is a waitress taking home $2,044.96. She pays $1,800 in rent. This leaves her disposable income at $244.96.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 The total means of the parties is therefore $2,044.96 a month.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Expenses of children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 I am conscious that there is no requirement that every expense must be proved (<em>UEB v UEC</em> [2018] SGHFC 5, at paragraph 13). I instead apply a broad brush in evaluating the expenses and come to my findings on them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 I accept the evidence of the Father that the expenses of the 1<sup>st</sup> child are $750.00 a month, and the expenses of the 2<sup>nd</sup> child are $430.00 a month. I find that these are reasonable taking into account the needs of the children and the means of the parents. The total is $1,180.00.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Allocation of maintenance</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The legal position is that each parent has an equal responsibility to maintain the children it but does not mean that they have to bear equal shares of the burden (<em>BPC v BPB</em> [2019] 1 SLR 642, at paragraph 111).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I take into account that I have ordered the care and control of the children to be with the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Based on her disposable income, that the Mother’s proportionate share to contribute to the children’s maintenance is 12%.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 Pursuant to the orders of access I have made above, the children will be spending a considerable amount of time with the Mother – on Wednesday evenings, and on weekends from Friday after school. During these periods, the Mother must bear the children’s expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I apply a broad brush to this issue and find it to be fair and reasonable for each parent to bear all the expenses of the children when the children are with them. I therefore make no order that the Mother pay any monthly maintenance for the children to the Father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 However, I find it to be fair and reasonable to order that the Mother shall bear 12% of common expenses such as school fees, tuition fees and medical expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Division of assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 Hereinafter I shall refer to the Plaintiff as “the Husband” and to the Defendant as “the Wife”.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Jointly owned asset</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 There are no jointly owned assets.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Husband’s assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 It is not disputed that the Husband has the following in his own name:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="11.9176164767047%"><col width="48.5902819436113%"><col width="39.4921015796841%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS bank account</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$784.80</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2.</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF accounts</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$277,618.04</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Total</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$278,805.56</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 The Husband has a UOB savings account shares with his ex-wife containing $424.72. The Husband has a joint saving account with his daughter from his previous marriage containing $501.63. I exclude these from the asset pool as they do not fall in within the definition of matrimonial asset under section 112 (10) of the Women’s Charter, since they were not acquired during the present marriage, nor substantially improved during the marriage nor used for the purposes of the family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 The Husband has 2 CDA accounts for 2 children. I exclude them from the asset pool as these by nature are meant specifically for the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 The Husband has 2 joint accounts with his minor children from the present marriage containing a total of $402.72. I include these in the asset pool as they fall within the section 112 (10) of the Women’s Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 The Husband is the sole owner of the matrimonial home, which is a 3-room HDB flat purchased in May 2011. There is no outstanding loan. This flat was bought before the parties’ marriage in 2016. The parties and the children of their marriage lived in this flat. The value of the flat is not disputed to be $441,000.00.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 I find that the Husband’s own assets amount to <u>$720,208.28</u>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Wife’s assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 It is not in dispute that the Wife has assets in her own name as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="14.5770845830834%"><col width="48.2903419316137%"><col width="37.1325734853029%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Bank account</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$1,461.90</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2.</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF accounts</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$10,892.56</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Total</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$12,354.46</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 The Husband claims that he gave to the Wife a sum of $55,000 which the Wife used to purchase a property in Vietnam. The Wife denies this. The Husband bears the burden of proving this fact. I find that he has not proved this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 The Husband alleges that the Wife has a property, an estate and bank accounts in Vietnam which has not been disclosed. He asks for an adverse inference to be drawn against her for this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 The Wife says that she used to have a property in Vietnam that was inherited by her from her previous husband who passed away in 2007. She sold that property and used part of the sale proceeds to purchase a smaller property in 2019. Her mother and elder sister lives there. There is no mortgage loan outstanding, and she says its value is $10,000. She did not produce any evidence in support of these. I will deal with this issue below.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Total asset pool</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 I find that the combined pool total matrimonial asset pool amounts to a value of <b>$732,562.74</b>. The details are in the table below.</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="51.24%"><col width="48.76%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Asset</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Value</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Husband’s assets</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$720,208.28</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Wife’s assets</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$12,354.46</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Total asset pool</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$732,562.74</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Parties’ positions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 The Husband asks for the home to be retained by him solely and the Wife be removed as a permitted occupier without any consideration from him. He asks that he retain his own assets. He asks that the Wife pay him $55,000 or that he gets a share of the Wife’s Vietnam property.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 The Wife asks for the home to be sold in the open market and the sale proceeds to be divided between the parties; or that the Husband may retain the flat and she gets a share of the asset pool.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Direct contributions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 Consequently, I find that each party’s direct contributions to the total matrimonial asset pool that are as follows-</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 The direct contributions are as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="56.08%"><col width="43.92%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total direct contributions</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$732,562.74 (100%)</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>% by the Husband</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">98.3%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>% by the Wife</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.7%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Indirect contributions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_47"></a>47 The Husband says that he has been the sole breadwinner of most of the marriage. He applied for the Wife’s permanent residency and made her an authorised occupier of his flat. He says that he is the primary caregiver of the children. He fetched them from childcare/school every day, prepares meals for them, eats with them, gives them showers and go through their schoolwork or play with them. He brings the children out on weekends when he does not work. He brings them for medical treatments and attends meetings with teachers on one of the children’s speech delay and autism. He handles the administrative matters with the school. He points out that the Wife left the matrimonial home and became uncontactable for a month in April 2020, and he claims that even then the Wife did not bother with the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_48"></a>48 The Wife says that she made half of the indirect contributions. She says that after marrying the Husband she relocated to Singapore but was unable to find employment, so she could not contribute financially to the home. She sold her property in Vietnam which she inherited from her deceased previous husband, and used the proceeds of the sale to buy a smaller property in Vietnam. She says that she alone made the payments for the purchase. Indeed, she claims that the reason she sold the property was because she needed the funds as the Husband had ceased to give financial support for her and the children. She says that after the birth of the 2<sup>nd</sup> child the Husband stopped maintaining her and the children even though she was not yet a permanent resident and so was unable to work. She says she was in a constant state of fear and uncertainty, and there were days that she did not have enough to eat. She says that a year later the Husband threw her out of the home, and she had to sleep in a park. She says that when she begged to return, the Husband demanded that she pay him $400 a month for rent. She says that she obtained permanent residency in April 2021 which she paid for herself. She took on more than one job. With her income she was able to purchase appliances such as fans, cooking apparatus, crockery, pillows, bedsheets and daily household necessities. She claims that she is the primary caregiver of the children. She also claims to prepare the children and sends them to childcare. She discusses with their teachers. She cooks for the family. She buys groceries. In the evenings she spends time with the children and puts them to bed. She cleans the home. She claims that the Husband is not interested in the children and does not assist in the housework.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_49"></a>49 The marriage was 5 years long. There are 2 children. Both parents worked to support the family. They both made sacrifices, and at times supported each other financially. I apply a broad brush to the facts before me. I find that the indirect contributions of the parties are not equal, but 60% from the Wife.</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr"><colgroup><col width="46.3092618523705%"><col width="26.8653730746149%"><col width="26.8253650730146%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Wife</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Direct contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">98.3%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.7%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Indirect contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">40%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">60%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Result</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">138.3%</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">61.7%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Average ratio </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_50"></a>50 The size of the matrimonial asset pool is not extraordinarily large, nor was it accrued by any one party’s exceptional effort. The extent and nature of indirect contributions are also not of such nature that calls for exceptional consideration. It was a relatively short marriage of 5 years. The bulk of the assets belong to the Husband, which he acquired before the marriage. I therefore exercise my discretion in these circumstances and give more weight of 60% to the direct contributions.</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr"><colgroup><col width="51.44%"><col width="24.1%"><col width="24.46%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Wife</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Direct contributions (60%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">58.98%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.02%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Indirect contributions (40%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">16%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">24%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Result</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">74.98%</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">25.02%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Wife’s Vietnam assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_51"></a>51 I find that the Wife did not make a reliable declaration of the value of the property in Vietnam as well as the bank accounts there. Based on the evidence I am not in a position to find what the correct value of the property is. The information must have been either available to the Wife, or obtainable by her. I find that it would be just and equitable to factor in 10% for an inference against the Wife regarding the true value of the property. The result is shown as follows.</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr"><colgroup><col width="43.76%"><col width="28.12%"><col width="28.12%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Wife</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Direct contributions (60%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">58.98%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.02%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Indirect contributions (40%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">16%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">24%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Result</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">74.98%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">25.02%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">After inference (10%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">84.98%</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">15.02%</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Share of total asset pool</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">($732,562.74)</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$622,531.82</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$110,030.92</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Result</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_52"></a>52 I begin by ordering the parties to keep the assets they each already have in their own names.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_53"></a>53 As above stated, the Wife already has $12,354.46 of her own assets. I order that the Husband shall pay to the Wife the remaining amount of $97,676.46. I shall deal with this together with the issue of the Wife’s maintenance below.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance of the Wife</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_54"></a>54 The Wife seeks an order of maintenance for herself in the monthly sum of $600.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_55"></a>55 As previously stated, the Wife is a waitress earning $2,044.96 a month. She pays most of that for rent.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_56"></a>56 The Husband argues that there ought to be no order of maintenance for the Wife. He argues that the Wife is relatively young and able bodies, whereas he is in the sunset of his career. He submits that the Wife has failed to make full and frank disclosure about her access to funds. He argues that the Wife rent payment is not proved.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Findings</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_57"></a>57 Whether or not I ought to order the Husband to pay maintenance to the Wife is a multifactorial inquiry (<em>TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/20026-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGCA 15</a> at [62]). It is supplementary to my order on the division of the assets (<em>ATE v ATD</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18402-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGCA 2</a> at [33]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_58"></a>58 The Wife has $1,461.90 in her bank account. I have found her share of the matrimonial asset pool to be $110,030.92, of which the Husband is to pay her $97,676.46. These should be sufficient provision for the Wife to transit to a post-divorce life and provides a clean break in the parties’ marital relationship.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_59"></a>59 I therefore order that the Husband to pay a lump sum of maintenance to the Wife in the sum of $97,676.46 within 6 months of the date of final judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Costs</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_60"></a>60 The Wife is legally aided.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_61"></a>61 The Husband succeeded on the issues of care and control of the children, as well as the division of assets. The Wife succeeded on the issue of maintenance to her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_62"></a>62 I find that it is fair and just to make no order as to costs.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Clarification</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_63"></a>63 After I released the above judgment, Counsel for the Wife wrote in requesting a clarification on 2 issues. The first issue is about the interpretation of the terms of access. Counsel says that the term “weekends alternating between first weekend and other weekend” is confusing and requests clarification. In reply, Counsel for the Husband agrees.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_64"></a>64 I agree. In order to clarify the order, I amend it to as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Custody care and control of children of the marriage</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">1. By consent, both parents shall have joint custody of the children.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">2. The children shall be in the care and control of the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">3. The Plaintiff shall provide the children with access to the Defendant as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2"> <u>a</u>. <u>Every weekend, alternating back and forth between the following:</u> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(<u>A</u>) <u>Friday after school to Monday morning. The Defendant will collect the children from their schools on Friday and she shall send the children to school on Monday; and</u> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(<u>B</u>) <u>Friday after school to Saturday evening at 8pm, when the Plaintiff shall collect the children.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2"> <u>b</u>. <u>During school holidays, every Friday from 5pm on Friday to Saturday 9pm, when the Plaintiff shall collect the children.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">c. Every Wednesday after school until 8:30pm. The Defendant shall collect the children from school and shall return them to the Plaintiff by 8:30pm.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">d. The children shall also have access to the Defendant via electronic means during non-access periods, and the Plaintiff shall have access to the children via electronic means during access periods.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2"> <u>e</u>. <u>In addition to the above, the children shall have access with the Defendant during the first half of school vacations. The Defendant shall collect the children from school at the start of the school vacation and the Plaintiff shall collect them at the end of the access on Saturday at 9pm.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">f. For Chinese New Year, the children shall be with the Plaintiff on the first day, and the children shall have access with the Defendant on the second day from 9am to 6pm.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">g. For public holidays other than Chinese New Year, the children shall have access with the Defendant on alternate public holidays from 9am to 6pm.”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_65"></a>65 The second issue that the Wife’s Counsel requests clarification is about my order that the Husband pays to the Wife a sum of $97,676.46 as lump sum maintenance in order to reflect her share of the division of the matrimonial asset pool. The Wife’s Counsel suggests that the amount be transferred from the Husband’s CPF to the Wife instead, and that there be no order on maintenance for the Wife. The learned Counsel for the Husband concurs with this view.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_66"></a>66 I did not make an order to transfer from the Husband’s CPF to the Wife simply because it was not requested for by the Wife during the course of the hearing. However, since both parties are in agreement on this issue, I amend the relevant portions of my order to as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Division of the matrimonial assets (aside from the matrimonial home)</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Defendant [hereinafter referred to as the “Spouse”] shall be entitled to $97,676.46 of the Plaintiff’s [hereinafter referred to as the “Member”] Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) monies pursuant to section 112 of the Women’s Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Board shall transfer, from the monies standing to the credit of the Member in the following CPF account(s) of the Member’s, the amount(s) specified as follows to the Spouse’s CPF account(s):</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="64.26%"><col width="35.74%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Member’s CPF account(s) to transfer from</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Amount to transfer</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Ordinary Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$97,676.46</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">This Order is made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (“CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder made in respect of the Member’s CPF monies, property and investments. The CPF Board shall give effect to the terms of this Order, in accordance with the provisions of the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder. That all obligations to effect the transfer to the Spouse of any amount that has been charged from the Member to the Spouse shall be on the Parties and not on the Board. Unless expressly provided for in the CPF Act, nothing in the Orders herein shall be taken to affect the Board’s charge on the matrimonial home or any other immovable property owned by one or both of the parties and which is the subject of this Order of Court. The Board shall determine the requisite refunds to be made to the respective parties’ CPF accounts upon the sale, transfer, assignment or otherwise disposal of such immovable property in accordance with the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The shortfall, if any, between the Ordinary Account and the payment received by the Spouse from the Board or transferred to the Spouse’s CPF account is a debt due from the Member to the Spouse and is recoverable as such.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Registrar/ Assistant Registrar of the Family Justice Courts under section 31 of the Family Justice Act 2014 is empowered to execute, sign, or endorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this order on behalf of either party should either party fail to do so within seven days of written request being made to the party.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Parties, including the Board, shall be at liberty to apply for further directions or Orders generally.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">Each party shall retain all other assets that are in their own names or not in their joint names, and neither shall have any rights or claims on the assets of the other hereafter.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Maintenance for wife / incapacitated husband</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The Plaintiff is not liable for maintenance to the Defendant.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>_________________________________________</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">ORDERS :</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">ORDERS (CLARIFIED):</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Custody care and control of children of the marriage</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1_1"></a>1. By consent, both parents shall have joint custody of the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2_2"></a>2. The children shall be in the care and control of the Plaintiff.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3_3"></a>3. The Plaintiff shall provide the children with access to the Defendant as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_a"></a>a. <u>Every weekend, alternating back and forth between the following:</u> </p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_3-p2_a-p3_A"></a>(A) <u>Friday after school to Monday morning. The Defendant will collect the children from their schools on Friday and she shall send the children to school on Monday; and</u> </p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_3-p2_a-p3_B"></a>(B) <u>Friday after school to Saturday evening at 8pm, when the Plaintiff shall collect the children.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_b"></a>b. <u>During school holidays, every Friday from 5pm </u> <u><del>on Friday </del></u> <u>to Saturday 9pm, when the Plaintiff shall collect the children.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_c"></a>c. Every Wednesday after school until 8:30pm. The Defendant shall collect the children from school and shall return them to the Plaintiff by 8:30pm.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_d"></a>d. The children shall also have access to the Defendant via electronic means during non-access periods, and the Plaintiff shall have access to the children via electronic means during access periods.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_e"></a>e. <u>In addition to the above, the children shall have access with the Defendant during the first half of school vacations. The Defendant shall collect the children from school at the start of the school vacation and the Plaintiff shall collect them at the end of the access on Saturday at 9pm.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_f"></a>f. For Chinese New Year, the children shall be with the Plaintiff on the first day, and the children shall have access with the Defendant on the second day from 9am to 6pm.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_g"></a>g. For public holidays other than Chinese New Year, the children shall have access with the Defendant on alternate public holidays from 9am to 6pm.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_h"></a>h. The parents shall not comment about each other in the children’s presence.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_i"></a>i. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant shall by himself/herself, his/her agents or his/her servants, bring the children, out of Singapore without the prior written consent of the other or an Order of Court.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_3-p2_j"></a>j. Both parents and the children shall attend counselling at FAM@FSC as well as the Children-in-Between Programme.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance for child(ren) of the marriage</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>Each parent to bear all the expenses of the children when the children are with them. The Defendant shall bear 12% of common expenses such as school fees, tuition fees and medical expenses.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Division of the matrimonial home</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>The Plaintiff shall retain all rights interest and share in the matrimonial home at Block XXX Fernvale Road #XX-XXX, Singapore XXXXXX. If applicable, the Defendant shall cease to be an authorised occupier of the home.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Division of the matrimonial assets (aside from the matrimonial home)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a> <u>The Defendant [hereinafter referred to as the “Spouse”] shall be entitled to $97,676.46 of the Plaintiff’s [hereinafter referred to as the “Member”] Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) monies pursuant to section 112 of the Women’s Charter.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a> <u>The Board shall transfer, from the monies standing to the credit of the Member in the following CPF account(s) of the Member’s, the amount(s) specified as follows to the Spouse’s CPF account(s):</u> </p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="49.92%"><col width="50.08%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Member’s CPF account(s) to transfer from</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Amount to transfer</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Ordinary Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$97,676.46</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a> <u>This Order is made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (“CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder made in respect of the Member’s CPF monies, property and investments. The CPF Board shall give effect to the terms of this Order, in accordance with the provisions of the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder. That all obligations to effect the transfer to the Spouse of any amount that has been charged from the Member to the Spouse shall be on the Parties and not on the Board. Unless expressly provided for in the CPF Act, nothing in the Orders herein shall be taken to affect the Board’s charge on the matrimonial home or any other immovable property owned by one or both of the parties and which is the subject of this Order of Court. The Board shall determine the requisite refunds to be made to the respective parties’ CPF accounts upon the sale, transfer, assignment or otherwise disposal of such immovable property in accordance with the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a> <u>The shortfall, if any, between the Ordinary Account and the payment received by the Spouse from the Board or transferred to the Spouse’s CPF account is a debt due from the Member to the Spouse and is recoverable as such.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a> <u>The Registrar/ Assistant Registrar of the Family Justice Courts under section 31 of the Family Justice Act 2014 is empowered to execute, sign, or endorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this order on behalf of either party should either party fail to do so within seven days of written request being made to the party.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a> <u>The Parties, including the Board, shall be at liberty to apply for further directions or Orders generally.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>Each party shall retain all other assets that are in their own names or not in their joint names, and neither shall have any rights or claims on the assets of the other hereafter.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance for wife / incapacitated husband</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a> <u>The Plaintiff is not liable for maintenance to the Defendant.</u> </p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Costs</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>No order on costs.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Such further or other reliefs as the Court deems fit</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>Liberty to apply.</p> </div></content></root> | 1296 |
Links from other tables
- 3 rows from _item in fc_judgments_version