fc_judgments: 87

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
87	e667915688165d6504582943b7793451cde72373	[ "Family Law \u2013 Maintenance \u2013 Wife" ]	2024-10-03	Family Court	Maintenance Summons No 397 of 2024	XDQ v XDP	[2024] SGFC 86	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%2F32256-SSP.xml	[ "Complainant-in-person", "Simran Kaur Sandhu for the Respondent" ]	2024-10-09T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Marcus Ho	<root><head><title>XDQ v XDP</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XDQ <em>v</em> XDP </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32256-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 86</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 397 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">03 October 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"> Marcus Ho </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"> Complainant-in-person; Simran Kaur Sandhu 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"> XDQ — XDP </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">Wife</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">3 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Marcus Ho:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 In this application, the Complainant claimed that the Respondent neglected to provide her with reasonable maintenance, and thus sought maintenance for herself as well as orders for backdated maintenance. After hearing the parties, I ordered the Respondent to pay to the Complainant spousal maintenance of $2,840 per month but declined to grant any backdated maintenance. The Respondent has since appealed against my decision. I now set out the full grounds of my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 At the time of the trial on 29 May 2024, the Complainant was 30 years old and the Respondent was 35 years old. The Complainant was unemployed, while the Respondent worked as an Assistant Professor at a local university (the “University”). The parties married in India on 4 August 2019. There are no children to the marriage.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 After the marriage, the Respondent worked in Singapore while the Complainant continued living in India, studying for her Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Chemical Biology. The Complainant moved to Singapore to live with the Respondent sometime in October 2022. Parties thereafter lived together in an apartment provided by the University that was located in an on-campus residential estate (the “University Apartment”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Sometime on or around 20 December 2023, parties travelled to India together. The Complainant returned to Singapore on 31 December 2023, while the Respondent returned on 11 January 2024. After the Complainant returned, she did not return to the University Apartment, and the parties have been separated since. While the Respondent continued to reside in the University Apartment, the Complainant stayed with friends until sometime in February 2024. She also travelled back to India for a period in between.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The Complainant filed this application on 19 February 2024, seeking maintenance for herself. Since then, and as at the time of the trial, the Complainant lived in a shelter at a location she said she was not at liberty to disclose. She said that she was allowed to stay there for a period of three months, which was almost over by the time I first heard the matter.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The applicable legal principles</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The Complainant’s application was made under Section 69 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) (the “Charter”). Under s 69(1) of the Charter, the court may make a maintenance order in favour of a married woman where her husband has proven to have neglected or refused to provide her with reasonable maintenance. In making its determination, the court is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the applicable factors set out at s 69(4) of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 As there are currently divorce proceedings underway, the maintenance order sought in this application is inherently interim in nature. The objective of such interim maintenance is to tide the complainant over while the divorce proceedings are in progress (<em>AXM v AXO</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2014] 2 SLR 0705.xml')">[2014] 2 SLR 705</a> (“<em>AXM</em>”) at [16]). Where there are pending divorce proceedings, the court will adopt a broad-brush approach in assessing the immediate needs of the complainant, since the issue of what maintenance she should eventually be entitled to will be revisited at the final hearing of the ancillary matters (<em>WGD v WGC</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/28744-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 69</a> at [30]), where the court is better placed to investigate the full facts of the case (see <em>AXM</em> at [13(c)]).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The parties’ positions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The Complainant’s primary position was that the Respondent should pay her a lump sum maintenance of $359,628. The Complainant said that this amount was calculated using her estimated monthly expenses of $5,500 per month as the multiplicand and the number of months of the marriage as the multiplier, less the cost of accommodation for the 14-month period she resided with the Respondent, and less the total amount of monies the Respondent had paid her during the marriage<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Complainant’s secondary ask was that the Respondent provides her with accommodation, plus a monthly sum of $2,000. If the Respondent does not provide her with accommodation, then she sought a monthly sum of $5,000<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span>. The Complainant said that she required this maintenance until she finds a job that would pay her enough to sustain her lifestyle<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Respondent’s position was that the sum of $400 per month, which he has been paying to the Complainant since February 2024, is sufficient for her maintenance. The Respondent was of the view that the Complainant should return to live in India, and reasoned that this sum of $400 would be sufficient to sustain her living expenses there<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">My decision</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Should the Complainant’s reasonable expenses be calculated based on her expenses in Singapore or in India?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Complainant claimed that her personal expenses amounted to $5,642 per month. This was based on the cost of her expenses in Singapore, where she was residing as at the time of the trial. The Respondent argued that there was no reason why the Complainant should continue residing in Singapore, and that she should return to India. The Respondent believed that it would be easier for the Complainant to find a job in India and that she has only chosen to remain in Singapore to obtain a higher maintenance amount from the Respondent<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span>. As such, the Respondent posited that any maintenance ordered should be based on the Complainant’s expenses in India, which would be significantly lower than her expenses in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 It was not disputed that the Complainant’s expenses in India would be much lower than her expenses in Singapore. After all, the Complainant had previously sustained herself and her widowed mother in India without any contribution from the Respondent and only with an income equivalent to $650 per month, which she received from her fellowship<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span>. However, this fact alone is not reason why the Complainant must return to India to live.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 In my view, it is not unreasonable for the Complainant to remain in Singapore, at least pending the conclusion of the parties’ divorce proceedings. The Respondent argues that the Complainant has no family and no connection to Singapore, but this is not entirely accurate: her husband, the Respondent, continues to live and work in Singapore. While divorce proceedings are underway, the interim judgment had not yet been granted as at the time of trial. The Complainant had moved to Singapore in October 2022, ostensibly because the parties had decided that this was where they wanted to reside in together for the next phase of their married lives. There was no suggestion, nor was there any evidence, that this was a temporary move. It is a fact that this was where the parties had lived out the most recent years of their marriage, and the fact of the matter is that as at the time of the trial, the Complainant continued to live in Singapore with no evidence of any plans to move back to India.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 Further, I am of the view that the Complainant is entitled to defend the divorce proceedings brought by the Respondent in the manner that she deems fit. Just because she had lawyers acting for her in the divorce (as at the time of the trial) does not necessarily mean that this will be the case throughout the course of the proceedings. It is unclear what the scope of her counsel’s engagement was, or if she would have the financial resources to continue to fund this engagement if the divorce proceedings were to drag on. Further, apart from this application which the Complainant took out and litigated on her own, there are various court events that may require the Complainant’s physical attendance, even if she continues to be represented by counsel; a contested divorce trial is one such example, and any future maintenance enforcement proceedings is another. There may also be occasions where parties are required to attend mediation and counselling in person.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 I therefore find that the Complainant is entitled to remain in Singapore, subject to the relevant immigration requirements and regulations. This does not necessarily plant the Complainant’s feet in Singapore, nor does it cast the Respondent’s obligations in stone; in the event that the Complainant does return to India, the parties may seek a variation of any maintenance orders as necessary. However, I did not find it appropriate at this juncture to peg the Complainant’s expenses to the cost of living in India, which may unwittingly force her to return to India, thereby placing her at a possible disadvantage in the ongoing divorce proceedings in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 I consequently found it appropriate to assess the Complainant’s reasonable expenses based on the cost of her expenses in Singapore.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The Complainant’s expenses</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 With the above in mind, I set out in the following table the monthly expenses that the Complainant claimed to incur<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span>, as well as my decision on them, taking into account the Respondent’s arguments with respect to the Complainant’s expenses:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="21.1357728454309%"><col width="23.2953409318136%"><col width="14.5170965806839%"><col width="41.0517896420716%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Item</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Complainant’s position</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Decision</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>My reasons</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Rent</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2,900</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1,800</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">I elaborate on my reasons at paragraph 19 below. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Utilities</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">120</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">120</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not substantiated but was not specifically contested by the Respondent. I did not find the monthly sum of $120 to be unreasonable. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Cable TV / TV streaming services</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">70</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not necessary for the purposes of interim maintenance. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Internet</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">50</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">There was no evidence that this was required bearing in mind that this may be included in the cost of renting a shared residence. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Home telephone line</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">21</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">There was no evidence that this was required. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Domestic helper salary</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">160</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The parties never engaged a domestic helper during the marriage. I did not find this to be a necessary expense at this juncture. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Utensils, cleaners</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">100</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Complainant clarified at trial that this included her floor cleaners, toiletries cleaners and kitchen utensils<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span>. The sum of $100 is excessive and there was no evidence that the Complainant has incurred such costs.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Food</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">900</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="3" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">700</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="3" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">I found that there was an overlap between the amounts claimed for ‘Food’, ‘Groceries’ and ‘Dining out’. Bearing in mind the limitations that the Complainant may face in cooking every meal for herself if she were to rent a room in a shared residence, and that she may consequently have to dine out at least from time to time, I found an amount of $700 per month to be reasonable. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Groceries</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">50</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Dining out</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">50</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Taxi / private hire</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">100</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="2" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">150</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="2" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">A total of $150 per month spent on transportation is not unreasonable. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Bus / MRT</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">50</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Medical</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">20</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not necessary as the Respondent had confirmed that Complainant can continue to make medical claims under his insurance which is part of his employment benefits<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span>.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Personal insurance</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">300</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Complainant did not have any existing insurance policy<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span>. Further, as above, the Respondent has confirmed that the Complainant can continue to make medical claims under his insurance.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Clothing</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">100</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="4" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">50</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="4" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not substantiated, although this was not specifically contested by the Respondent either. I find the total monthly estimate of $190 to be too high. Some adjustments have to be made. The Complainant may reduce her expenditure on other expenses to accommodate this expense if necessary. I found that a sum of $50 per month on these expenses was reasonable and sufficient. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Shoes</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">20</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Personal grooming</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">50</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Toiletries</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">20</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Mobile phone</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">21</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">21</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was reasonable and more or less commensurate with what Respondent incurred for himself. </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Allowance for parents</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">200</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not necessary for the purposes of interim maintenance. There is also no evidence that the Complainant had been making regular payments of $200 per month to her parents. At trial, the Complainant clarified that she did not actually transfer to her mother a sum of $200 a month. Rather, her mother used monies held in their joint account from time to time<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span>.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Entertainment</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">70</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not necessary for the purposes of interim maintenance. The Complainant may reduce her expenditure on other expenses to accommodate this expense if necessary.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Sports</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">70</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not necessary for the purposes of interim maintenance. The Complainant may reduce her expenditure on other expenses to accommodate this expense if necessary.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Outings</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">50</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not necessary for the purposes of interim maintenance. The Complainant may reduce her expenditure on other expenses to accommodate this expense if necessary.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Travel</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">150</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">This was not necessary for the purposes of interim maintenance. The Complainant may reduce her expenditure on other expenses to accommodate this expense if necessary.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Home apparatus</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">100</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">0</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">The Complainant clarified that this was to account for her having to buy “<em>fans and other things to reduce the electricity cost</em>”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span>. There was no evidence that this was required. This was also not an expense that the Complainant has had to incur so far.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$5,642</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$2,841</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In the round, for the reasons explained above, <u>I found that the Complainant’s reasonable monthly expenses amounted to $2,841</u>, and overall found this to be a fair amount for the Complainant given her circumstances.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 A significant portion of this sum of $2,841 can be attributed to the Complainant’s rental expenses, which I found would reasonably amount to $1,800 per month. To explain and elaborate further on my findings with respect to the Complainant’s rental expenses:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_a"></a>(a) The Complainant was living in a shelter and was only allowed to stay there for 3 months. Even if an extension of her stay was permitted by the shelter, I did not find this to be a sustainable living arrangement for her, and certainly not one that was commensurate with the parties’ standard of living during the marriage. I therefore found it reasonable for her to seek suitable accommodation elsewhere.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_b"></a>(b) In support of the Complainant’s estimate of $2,900 for rental expenses, the Complainant provided a screenshot of some WhatsApp messages from one ‘Jeviar House’<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span>, which purported to be a conversation with a property agent that she had in March 2024<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span>. These messages indicated that the cost of renting a one bedroom and one bathroom fully-furnished HDB unit at 119 Bukit Merah View was $2,900. The Complainant said that she was open to living in cheaper accommodation<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span>, and considered renting a bedroom in a shared apartment. However, the unit that she found at a cost of $1,500 per month required her to share the apartment (which was a HDB flat in Jurong) with a male tenant, which she was not comfortable with. She therefore did not follow up on this<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_c"></a>(c) I found the Complainant’s estimate of $2,900 per month to be on the high side. I found it hard to believe that the Complainant was unable to find accommodation in Singapore that would cost her less than $2,900 per month, especially since she was open to renting a bedroom in a shared residence. The Complainant also did not provide any evidence showing her efforts made to find alternative accommodation, apart from the abovementioned WhatsApp messages. I further note that the Complainant never provided the listing for the unit at 119 Bukit Merah View, which would have shown the full details of this property. However, from the preview of this listing as can be seen in the messages provided, it appears that this was for the rental of an entire HDB 3-room flat, which would explain the higher monthly rental cost of $2,900.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_d"></a>(d) On the other hand, while the Respondent contested the reasonableness of the Complainant’s estimate of $2,900 per month, he did not provide any evidence showing the cost of alternative accommodation. The Respondent only asserted that this should be around $1,100, which was an amount he surmised based on his conversations with his interns at the University<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span>. The Respondent also never questioned the Complainant’s evidence that renting a room in a shared apartment in Jurong would have cost her $1,500, nor did the Respondent make any submission to suggest that this was an unduly high amount for a room in a shared apartment.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_e"></a>(e) I therefore found that the sum of $1,800, which is slightly more than the sum of $1,500 that the Complainant said she was previously quoted for a shared apartment in Jurong, would be reasonable and sufficient for the Complainant to find a suitable accommodation for herself. In arriving at this conclusion, I also considered that the Complainant may have a more limited pool of options to choose from given the availability of female-only shared residences (which I did not find to be an unreasonable preference on her part) as well as the difficulties that the Complainant may face in actually securing an accommodation because of her uncertain immigration status.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">The parties income and financial resources</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 Having established that the Complainant’s reasonable expenses amount to $2,841 per month, I turn to assess the parties’ incomes and financial resources.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 Before moving from India to Singapore, the Complainant received an allowance equivalent to about $650 per month from her fellowship. The Complainant has a PhD and, by her own account, was hopeful of obtaining a job in Singapore that would pay her about $5,000 to $6,000 per month. The Complainant said that she had been looking for post-graduate positions and applying for jobs. She had even attended interviews in August 2023 and in January 2024. By all accounts, the Complainant had the inclination to work and appears to possess the requisite qualifications to find a decent job. However, the reality of the situation is that the Complainant has never worked in Singapore and that she remained unemployed as at the date of the trial. Given the Complainant’s circumstances including the nebulous nature of her immigration situation, I found it hard to say if and when the Complainant would be able to gain employment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 Further, there was limited evidence before me on the financial resources available to the Complainant, save for some bank statements disclosed<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span>, which revealed that her savings in Singapore and India total no more than the equivalent of $8,000 as at April 2024. There was nothing to suggest that the Complainant was in possession of undisclosed financial resources that would be able to tide her through the proceedings notwithstanding her state of unemployment, and the Respondent never made any assertions or submissions to this effect. I therefore accepted that the Wife was not in a position to pay for her reasonable monthly expenses in this interim period without contribution from the Respondent.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 In contrast to the Complainant’s financial situation, the Respondent earned a substantial income and had significant financial assets to his name. The Respondent’s own evidence was that he earned an average of $14,676 a month<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span>. His IRAS Notice of Assessment for Year of Assessment 2024 showed that he received a total of $217,550 from his employment<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span>, which translates to about $18,130 per month. Based on his declaration in his Electronic Template Statement (“ETS”), the value of his bank accounts and fixed deposits alone total over $360,000<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span>.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The Respondent, to his credit, candidly stated at trial that he could technically afford the monthly maintenance amount sought by the Complainant (of $5,000 per month)<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span>. This cohered with my assessment of his financial means and his expenses. The Respondent’s personal expenses, as declared in his ETS, amount to $4,656.06 per month. I found that he was more than able to afford both the Complainant’s claimed maintenance amount and his own expenses, even if I were to take his stated expenses at face value without conducting a full analysis of the same.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">My orders</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 In the circumstances as set out above, I ordered that <u>the Respondent shall pay to the Complainant a sum of $2,840 per month (rounded down) to the Complainant as her maintenance, payable on the 21<sup>st</sup> day of each month, starting from 21 June 2024</u>. It was evident from the disparity in quantum between the amount I had assessed as the Complainant’s reasonable expenses ($2,841) and the amount that the Respondent had been paying to the Complainant each month ($400) that the Respondent’s contributions have been insufficient. I found that this was not out of ignorance on the Respondent’s part, as the Respondent was patently aware of his obligations and had voluntarily transferred to the Complainant a sum of $400 per month, or for want of communication on the Complainant’s end, as the Complainant had sent an email to the Respondent on 4 January 2024, specifically requesting that he provided her with shelter and financial support<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span>. Rather, this appears to have been premised on the Respondent’s view that the Complainant should return to India, which I found was not a fair and reasonable view to hold in the circumstances. I therefore found on the facts that the Respondent had indeed neglected to provide the Complainant with reasonable maintenance, and that a maintenance order in the Complainant’s favour was warranted.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 For completeness, I declined to order the lump sum maintenance of $359,628 sought by the Complainant at this stage. The Complainant’s request stemmed from her belief that the Respondent should have provided but did not provide her with maintenance from the beginning of the marriage. However, prior to moving from Singapore to Osaka in October 2022, the Complainant was voluntarily living in India and earning an allowance. After moving to Singapore, she moved in to stay with the Respondent in the University Apartment, where they lived as a couple and even went on various overseas trips together, which the Complainant did not have to pay for. There was no evidence of her being in lack, nor was there any evidence of the Complainant seeking monies from the Respondent. I therefore did not find that the Complainant had proven her case in this regard, and in any case, I did not deem this to be an appropriate or justifiable mode of payment in the circumstances.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 For the same reason, I also declined the Complainant’s request for backdated maintenance for the period prior to January 2024. For the period thereafter, the Complainant stayed with friends, returned to India for some time, and lived in a shelter. She had sufficient funds to subsist during this period and did not incur any accommodation expenses during this period. During the Complainant’s stay in the shelter, most, if not all, of her daily needs were provided for. Taking into account the fact that the Respondent had made some voluntary payments during this period where her expenditure was reduced, I found that an order for backdated maintenance was not justified.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 Neither party sought costs against the other. I accordingly made no order as to 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>Notes of Evidence for the hearing on 29 May 2024 (“NE1”), p 52 lines 3-20</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>NE1, p 8 lines 1-3</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>NE1, p 62 lines 15-19</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>NE1, p83 lines 16-20</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>NE1, p 105 lines 2-5</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>NE1, p 14 lines 10-29</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>The Complainant’s documents as compiled into a bundle (by the Respondent’s counsel) that was tendered at the start of the trial on 29 May 2024 (“C1”), p 17-19</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>NE1, p70 lines 2-6</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>NE1, p 91 line 29 – p 93 line 20</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>NE1, p 68 lines 23-24</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>NE1, p 69 lines 5-11</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>NE1, p 70 lines 9-12</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>C1, p 47</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>NE1, p 31 lines 5-14</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>NE1, p 33 lines 23 – p 34 line 1</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>NE1, p 67 lines 15-27</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>NE1, p 93 lines 30 to p 94 lines 8</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>C1, p 27-31, 41-45</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>NE1, p 83 lines 11-12</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>The Respondent’s documents as compiled into a bundle that was tendered at the start of the trial on 29 May 2024 (“R1”), p 33</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>R1, p 8-9</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>NE1, p 15-31</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>This email dated 4 January 2024, along with a letter from the Respondent’s solicitors to the Complainant dated 11 January 2024, were filed by the Complainant on iFAMS on 23 April 2024. At the start of the trial, the Respondent’s counsel helpfully bundled and tendered a copy of the documents filed on iFAMs by the Complainant as well as a copy of the Respondent’s documents, which I had marked as C1 and R1 respectively. However, the email of 4 January 2024 and the letter of 11 January 2024, among other documents, were not included in C1.</p></div></content></root>	1815

Links from other tables

1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version