fc_judgments: 77
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | 7a616f07aeb451a0daf768472e50f67a064334d4 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Procedure \u2013 Discovery"
] |
2024-08-26 | Family Court | Divorce No 1418 of 2011 (Summons No 2193 and 2194 of 2024) | XCL v XCM | [2024] SGFC 75 | 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%2F32108-SSP.xml | [
"VM Vidthiya (Victory Law Chambers LLC) for the plaintiff",
"the defendant in-person and unrepresented."
] |
2024-09-13T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XCL v XCM</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XCL <em>v</em> XCM </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32108-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 75</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 1418 of 2011 (Summons No 2193 and 2194 of 2024)</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">26 August 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"> Soh Kian Peng </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"> VM Vidthiya (Victory Law Chambers LLC) for the plaintiff; the defendant in-person and unrepresented. </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"> XCL — XCM </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Procedure</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Discovery</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">26 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved">Judgment reserved</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Assistant Registrar Soh Kian Peng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 Divorce proceedings had concluded in 2011. The court had recorded a consent order.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> Clause 2 of that order provided that the Husband was to pay maintenance of $300 per month for each of the two children. The Wife has now applied <em>vide</em> SUM 1987/2024 (“SUM 1987”) to vary clause 2. To that end, she took out an application for discovery in SUM 2194/2024 (“SUM 2194”) and interrogatories in SUM 2193/2024 (“SUM 2193”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 I heard SUM 2194 and SUM 2193 on 12 August and reserved judgment. This is my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 Given that the provisions which govern the Wife’s application for variation of the consent order recorded are found in Part X of the Women’s Charter 1961 (<em>see Nalini d/o Ramachandran v Saseedaran Nair s/o Krishnan</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2010] SGHC 0098.xml')">[2010] SGHC 98</a> at [14]), the applicable rules that apply to discovery and interrogatories are found in Rules 63 – 77 of the Family Justice Rules 2014. As is stated in Rule 63(2):</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(2) Rules 63 to 77 apply to all matters involving ancillary or financial relief, as the case may be, in any proceedings commenced by writ or originating summons under Part X of the Act.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The purpose of discovery and interrogatories is to ensure that the judge hearing the matter has all the available evidence needed to dispose of the case. In that vein, one must consider the relevance and necessity of the discovery and interrogatories sought, bearing in mind the issues that are likely to arise at the hearing of the substantive matter. Here, it appears from an affidavit which the Wife had filed,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> that the main issue in her application for variation is whether there has been a material change in circumstances (see <em>ATS v ATT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/19435-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGHC 196</a> at [11] – [16]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 It is with this in mind that I now turn to consider the Wife’s application for discovery in SUM 2194.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 2194 – Application for Discovery</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 Item 1 was a request for the breakdown of the Husband’s monthly expenses with an amount for each item.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 This was, strictly speaking, not a request for the Husband to produce documents. It should have been framed as an interrogatory as opposed to being a request for discovery.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 Leaving this aside, the Wife’s request is indeed relevant to determining whether a variation of the maintenance order is warranted. A breakdown of the Husband’s expenses will go towards showing whether there has been indeed a material change in circumstances that warrant such a variation. I will therefore order that the Husband provide a breakdown of his monthly expenses and provide the relevant documents in support.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 I turn next to Items 2 and 3 which related to the Husband’s income. These were the specific requests as framed:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_a"></a>(a) Item 2: IRAS Notice of Assessment for the past 3 years;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_b"></a>(b) Item 3: Pay slips for the past 6 months</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 I accept that these documents are relevant and necessary for the variation proceedings. They would cast light on whether there had indeed been a material change in circumstances, such as whether the Husband had experienced a drastic increase in his income, that warranted a variation to the original maintenance order.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Wife’s request in respect of Items 2 and 3 is allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I shall next deal with Items 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 together. These were the specific requests as framed:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a"></a>(a) Documentary evidence to prove that the Husband had debts (Item 4);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b"></a>(b) Court documents related to the Debt Repayment Scheme (Item 5);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_c"></a>(c) Documents from the bank to prove allegedly incurred debts of $13,327.76 (Item 8);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_d"></a>(d) Documentary evidence to substantiate the debts allegedly incurred with [J], [SC] Pte Ltd, [A] Pte Limited, [RC] Pte Ltd (Item 9);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_e"></a>(e) Documentary evidence to substantiate the debts allegedly incurred with M1, Singtel and Starhub (Item 10);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_f"></a>(f) Documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged debt of $21,056.67 under “Hire Purchase” (Item 11);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_g"></a>(g) Documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged debt of $7000 under Medisave (Item 12).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 I will allow the request in respect of Items 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. They would allow the Wife to assess whether the Husband indeed had such debts, and in that vein, consider whether may still be worthwhile pursuing her application for a variation of a maintenance order. Should the application proceed to hearing, these documents were certainly relevant and necessary to allowing the judge hearing the matter to determine the true state of the Husband’s financial affairs, and whether there had indeed been a material change in circumstances.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 In this vein, I will also allow the Wife’s request in Item 6 where she sought copies of the Husband’s bank statements for the past 3 months. These statements were, in my judgment, relevant and necessary to shedding light on the Husband’s financial circumstances and thus had a direct bearing on the Wife’s application for an upwards variation in maintenance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 I turn now to deal with the Wife’s request in Item 7, which was for documentary evidence to prove that the Husband had been paying his mother a monthly sum as an allowance. The reason for this request was that the Husband had listed his mother as a dependent in the Consultation Form of [D]. Whether the Husband is indeed supporting his mother financially is relevant for the purposes of the Wife’s application to vary the maintenance order. It would give the court a fuller picture of the Husband’s financial obligations.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Wife’s request in Item 7 is allowed.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">SUM 2193 – Application for Interrogatories</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 These were the interrogatories as framed by the Wife:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">1. State the reasons for incurring $13,327.76 as debts with the various banks.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">2. State the reason for engaging the services of 3 telco companies.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">3. Explain why you had incurred an alleged debt of $7000 under Medisave.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">4. Explain with documentary evidence the alleged debt of $7000 from the “Government”.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">5. Explain with documentary evidence the alleged debt of $320 from [X] Pte Ltd.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">6. Explain with documentary evidence the alleged debt of $1800 from [Y] Pte Ltd.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The common thread binding these interrogatories is that the Wife wants the Husband to explain the reason for incurring these debts. During the hearing, counsel for the Wife had explained that the Wife wanted to know why the Husband had these debts because she did not want a situation where the Husband incurs debts and shirks his responsibility to provide for the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 I disallow the Wife’s application for interrogatories. These interrogatories were not, in my judgment, relevant to the Wife’s application to vary the maintenance order. The Husband’s reasons for incurring the debt were hardly relevant to the issue of whether there had been a material change in circumstances which warranted the upwards variation in the maintenance order that the Wife sought. What was relevant was the extent of the Husband’s financial liabilities, and to that end, I have allowed the Wife’s application for discovery in SUM 2194.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 To sum up, the Wife’s applications in SUM 2194 for discovery is allowed in its entirety. Her application in SUM 2193 for interrogatories is dismissed. The Husband is to file his compliance affidavit by 16 September.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 Costs submissions for SUM 2194 and 2193 are to be filed, by way of letter, limited to a maximum of 3 pages each. This is to be done no later than 2 September 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing that I have said here shall bind the hands of the judge hearing the application for a variation of the maintenance order. The time limited for filing an appeal against this judgment shall only begin to run once I have issued my decision on costs.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Minute Sheet dated 7 July 2011.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s Affidavit filed on 8 March 2024.</p></div></content></root> | 1802 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version