fc_judgments_version: 73
This data as json
| _id | _item | _version | _commit | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _item_full_hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73 | 63 | 1 | 1788 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Divorce \u2013 Ancillary Matters"
] |
2024-08-08 | Family Court | Divorce No 2663 of 2022 | XAP v XAQ | [2024] SGFC 61 | 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%2F31947-SSP.xml | [
"Sofia Bennita D/O Mohamed Bakhash (Phoenix Law Corporation) for the plaintiff",
"S.M. Sukhmit Singh (Damodara Ong LLC) for the defendant."
] |
2024-08-15T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Patrick Tay Wei Sheng | <root><head><title>XAP v XAQ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XAP <em>v</em> XAQ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31947-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 61</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 2663 of 2022</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">08 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"> Patrick Tay Wei Sheng </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"> Sofia Bennita D/O Mohamed Bakhash (Phoenix Law Corporation) for the plaintiff; S.M. Sukhmit Singh (Damodara Ong LLC) for the defendant. </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"> XAP — XAQ </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Divorce</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Ancillary Matters</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">8 August 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The parties married in 2011. They had a child who was 11 years of age. Their marriage fell apart with interim judgment of divorce granted in June 2024. I divided the pool of their matrimonial assets, which comprised predominantly their matrimonial flat, 70:30 in favour of the husband. I also ordered that the parties share custody of the child, with care and control to the husband and liberal access to the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 Prior to the hearing of these ancillary matters, the husband had agreed to pay the wife a monthly sum of $660 for the maintenance of the child. I ordered that this arrangement continue, taking account of the modest income of the wife and the need for the wife to support the child during the liberal access that she had been granted.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The wife has filed an appeal against these decisions. I now provide my reasons for them.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 In January 2017, the wife left the then-matrimonial residence, which was a room in an apartment that was owned by her mother-in-law, because of her “tumultuous relationship”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> with the mother-in-law. She took the child with her and headed to Indonesia, where she remained a citizen even after she had obtained permanent residency in Singapore. She returned to Singapore with the child in July 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, to avail of the healthcare infrastructure in Singapore. She moved with the child into the current matrimonial residence, which was a flat the keys to which had been collected by the husband in 2019.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The flat had been purchased in the sole name of the husband. He had applied to the Housing and Development Board to purchase the flat in 2013. He received a notice from the Housing and Development Board to collect the keys to the flat in 2017. Following delays, he eventually completed the purchase of the flat in April 2019.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Division of matrimonial assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The primary matrimonial asset between the parties was the flat, which had been purchased in the sole name of and financed solely by the husband. It was not in dispute that the market value of the flat was $420,000 and the outstanding liability under the mortgage on the flat was $67,000. These figures produced a net value of the flat of $353,000.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The husband contended that he had taken personal loans from his family that totalled $35,000. He explained that he had done so to finance the purchase of the flat and its related expenditures. He submitted that his liability to repay the $35,000 should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets. The wife denied this contention and asserted that the husband had “failed to substantiate the monies he allegedly borrowed from his family to purchase the matrimonial flat”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The husband exhibited bank records of two transfers that totalled $35,000 that he had received from his family. He deposed that these transactions had taken place at or around April 2019, which was the time when he had completed the purchase of the flat,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> and which evidence was not challenged by the wife. Although these bank records were silent on the purpose of the transfers, I saw no reason to disbelieve the husband that the transfers were connected to the purchase of the flat given their proximity to the time when he had completed the purchase of the flat. On the evidence, these transfers had likely been advances to the husband for his purchase of the flat.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Further, it was likely that the $35,000 had been advanced to the husband by way of a loan rather than by way of a gift. Although the contemporaneous documentation on the nature of the advance was scant, it was not in dispute that the husband had taken advances on his credit cards at or around the same time. There was no dispute that these advances on the credit cards of the husband were loans that the husband had taken. Given the proximity in the time of the advances taken by the husband from the credit cards companies to the time the advances taken by the husband from his family, I accepted the explanation of the husband that the latter advances were likewise loans.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The value of the matrimonial assets was thus $318,000. This sum took account the $420,000 market value of the matrimonial flat, the $67,000 liability under the mortgage on the flat, and the $35,000 liability of the husband under the loans from his family.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The parties were in accord that the “structured approach” in <em>ANJ v ANK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17925-SSP.xml')">[2015] 4 SLR 1043</a> governed the division of their matrimonial assets and that the husband solely financed the acquisition of the matrimonial assets. The direct contributions of the parties were thus 100:0 in favour of the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The marriage lasted 13 years. The child of the marriage was 11 years of age. The wife was a homemaker for the earlier half of the marriage. During that time, she cooked and cleaned the matrimonial residence and looked after the child. But she then left the matrimonial residence for Indonesia for four years and uprooted the child in doing so. By default, the wife had made herself the sole caregiver of the child during these four years. But it was difficult to award her credit by way of indirect contributions for this arrangement. For these four years, the child was deprived of the care by the husband and of the benefits of co-parenting, which has “a positive effect on [child] development and well-being” (see <em>TAU v TAT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/22624-SSP.xml')">[2018] 5 SLR 1089</a> at [33]). Indeed, the child was cared for less by the wife and more by her relatives for much of these four years,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> which arrangement left the wife with limited parenting to perform. These four years also disrupted the education of the child, who was then of school-going age. Even so, the husband continued to maintain the child in the weekly sum of $150. He also visited the wife and the child in Indonesia three or four times.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> When the wife and the child returned to Singapore in 2020, the husband provided for them from his income as a private-hire driver while the wife sought employment.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> After the wife found employment as a barista, the husband cared for the child from day to day when the wife performed night shifts that necessitated her sleeping in the daytime. In these premises, I assessed the indirect contributions at 60:40 in favour of the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Averaging the direct contributions of 100:0 in favour of the husband and the indirect contributions of 60:40 in favour of the wife gave a final ratio of 70:30 in favour of the husband. I thus divided the pool of matrimonial assets, which had a value of $318,000 (see [10] above) in the proportions of 70% to the husband and 30% to the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Child welfare</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 In considering the custody and upbringing of a child, the first and paramount consideration was the welfare of the child. That was the statutory imperative set out in s 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (2020 Rev Ed). And this entailed a multi-faceted and multi-factorial analysis that recognised that “welfare” had to be understood in its widest sense (see <em>IW v IX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2006] 1 SLR(R) 0135.xml')">[2006] 1 SLR(R) 135</a>).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Custody</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The wife initially sought the sole custody of the child. The husband proposed that the parties share joint custody of the child. The wife eventually agreed with this proposal.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> I thus ordered that the husband and the wife share joint custody of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Care and control</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The wife and the husband each sought the care and control of the child. The wife submitted that she was the primary caregiver of the child and that the child was closer to her.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> The husband submitted that he was the caregiver of the child from day to day and had provided the child with a stable and secure environment that conduced to the best interests of the child.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 On a balance of probabilities, awarding the husband the care and control of the child conduced to the best interests of the child. The husband cared deeply for the child. Moreover, he had throughout the life of the child been ready and able to care for the child. Up until the child was removed from his care in 2017, he had participated in the upbringing of the child. Even when the wife had so removed the child, there was no evidence that the husband had failed to discharge his parental responsibilities. Rather, the wife had done so because of her unhappiness with her mother-in-law. Yet the husband did not let this removal of the child deter him from discharging his parental responsibilities to the child; he supported for the child as best he could by maintaining the child in the weekly sum of $150 and by visiting the child in Indonesia.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span> After the child was returned to Singapore, he provided shelter and a secure environment for the child that conduced to the development of the child. He cared for the child from day to day, and especially when the wife performed night shifts and slept in the daytime. He made time for the child whenever the child needed care by leveraging on the flexibility that he enjoyed in his work as a private-hire driver. He enlisted his mother, the paternal grandmother, to care for the child while he was at work. Ultimately, the husband was a hands-on father who had been immersed in the upbringing of the child and who was a capable caregiver for the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The wife, like the husband, cared for the child. But she was prone to decisions in her self-interest that could come at the expense of the child. She removed the child from Singapore after a disagreement with her mother-in-law.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> She did so without regard to the disruption that it would bring to the child, who was a citizen of Singapore, and without any viable plans on the caregiving of the child. For four months, she left the child with her relatives in Batam while she “shuttled back and forth [to] Singapore for work”. Only thereafter did she bring the child to Jakarta, where her family could care for the child.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> These events disrupted the education of the child and upended the life of the child, who was shunted first from Singapore to Batam, then from Batam to Jakarta, and finally from Jakarta back to Singapore. This volatility would have been particularly jarring for the child, who had special needs and who had been barely four years of age at the time of these events.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Leaving aside this capriciousness, concerns remained in how the wife would discharge the care and control of the child after the divorce. Her living arrangements were unclear, and her caregiving plans for the child were murkier still. She provided scant details on how she would shelter the child or on how she would care for the child given her variable work schedule that required her to perform night shifts and that in turn necessitated her sleeping-in during the day. To remove the child from the familiarity of the caregiving network that had been put together by the husband and his mother and introduce the child into this uncertainty was hardly in the best interests of the child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 For completeness, the wife alleged that the husband had abused her physically, mentally and emotionally. She claimed that she had left in 2017 Singapore “due to the tumultuous relationship she has with the [mother-in-law] and the lack of support from the [husband]”. She added that it was the husband who “suggested that [she] leave Singapore if she was unhappy” in 2017 and who would “shout at her to return to Indonesia” whenever they argued following her return to Singapore in 2020.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 I struggled to accept that the wife had been abused by the husband. There was no evidence beyond her self-serving assertions that she had been so abused. The predominant reason for her departure from the matrimonial residence in 2017 was, in her words, her “tumultuous relationship” with her mother-in-law. Even if, as she alleged, the husband had not supported her during this turmoil, that omission did not establish that he had abused her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 In any event, any turmoil between the wife and the husband or between the wife and the mother-in-law was not relevant to whether the husband or the wife could better care for the child. On the evidence, the husband had been a capable parent who provided a stable and secure environment that conduced to the development of the child. This stability and security were crucial at least in the immediate future, when the child would be taking a national examination. Notwithstanding the maternal bond, the child was close to and comfortable with the husband and the paternal grandmother, who had put in place workable arrangements for his upbringing. The interests of the child would thus be best served by placing him in the care and control of the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Access</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Even so, it would be in the interests of the child for the husband and wife to co-parent the child despite any disagreements that they had between themselves. I thus granted the wife liberal access (including overnight access) to the child as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_a"></a>(a) access every weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_b"></a>(b) access for half of the school holidays; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_c"></a>(c) access on alternate Chinese New Year holidays.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The wife sought monthly maintenance of $1,000 for herself and $1,400 for the child. The husband submitted that no maintenance should be ordered for the wife but promised to “fully support his son financially in Singapore”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 For the wife, I agreed with the husband that no spousal maintenance was necessary. The wife earned a monthly income of $1,900. That income, together with her share of the matrimonial assets (which share amounted to $95,400), equipped the wife to support herself following the divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 For the child, it was not in dispute that the husband had during these proceedings provided the wife a monthly sum of $660 for the expenses of the child. Having awarded the care and control of the child to the husband, there was, in principle, limited basis to order the husband to finance the spending of the wife on the child. Even so, I had granted the wife liberal access to the child, including for most of each weekend and half of the child’s school holidays. Given these substantial periods in which the wife would be caring for the child, and given the $3,500 earning capacity of the husband, I ordered that the husband continue to provide the same sum each month to the wife for the expenses of the child. This sum would alleviate, at least for the near future, the financial load that the wife would be bearing while the child was in her care during access.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 I thus divided the pool of their matrimonial assets, which were valued at $318,000, in the proportions of $222,600 to the husband and $95,400 to the wife. I awarded the care and control of the child to the husband, with liberal access to the wife. I ordered the husband to provide the wife with a monthly sum of $660 for the expenses of the child while the child was in her care. I finally urged the parties to work together to co-parent the child in a manner that promoted stability in the caregiving and living arrangements of the child, especially in the immediate future when the child would be taking a national examination.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [36.2]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>2HAOM23</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [30]–[31]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [30]–[31]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [32]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [49]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [50] and [52]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Husband’s Submissions at [55]–[56]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [30]–[31]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [30]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [30]</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Wife’s Submissions at [36.2]–[36.3]</p></div></content></root> | a4b3ce7ba920bdf7fcb3101a0cf97b7803ef71d4 |
Links from other tables
- 11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed