fc_judgments_version: 92

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit tags date court case-number title citation url counsel timestamp coram html _item_full_hash
92 72 2 1802   2024-09-04             2024-09-13T16:00:00Z[GMT]   <root><head><title>XBS v XBT</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XBS <em>v</em> XBT </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32080-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 70</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 1677 of 2023</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">04 September 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"> Lee Ming Hui Kelvin (Winlex LLC) for the applicant; Tan Jin Song (Havelock Law Corporation) 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"> XBS — XBT </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">4 September 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       A wife sought monthly maintenance of $600 from her husband pending the resolution of their divorce. She did so by way of these proceedings, which she commenced in July 2023. Four months later, in October 2023, she sold $300,000 of securities that she owned and transferred $120,000 of the proceeds to her two adult children. She contended that she was unemployed, had to provide for the two adult children, and depended on the financial support of the husband. I declined to grant this application, and the wife has filed an appeal against this decision. I now provide my reasons for it.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       The court in an application for such wife maintenance considers, at the outset, whether the husband had “neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for her” (see s 69(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed)). If so, the court will assess the quantum of maintenance to be paid based on all the circumstances of the case, including the factors enumerated in s 69(4) of the Charter. Further, an application for wife maintenance that is pursued when divorce proceedings between the spouses are ongoing is an order for “interim” maintenance. The focus of such interim maintenance is the “immediate needs and necessities” of the wife. This is because the complete financial resources of the parties would not have been “fully fleshed out or substantiated until all preparations and filings for the ancillary matters have been completed”. Hence, the interim maintenance operates as “tide-over” sums that are temporary in nature and conservative in quantum (see <em>TEQ v TER</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17973-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 119</a> at [20]; see also <em>ARL v ARN</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0142.xml')">[2011] SGDC 142</a> at [32]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       Before me, the wife claimed monthly expenses of $5,040.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> This sum included generous estimates for food and groceries (which totalled $2,200); apparel and grooming (which totalled $450); travel and entertainment (which totalled $1,270); and an allowance for her parents at $400. The receipts that the wife exhibited in support of these claims revealed a lifestyle of dining at restaurants to the tune of $100–$200 each week and an affinity for tableware that cost up to $552 for set of a food tray and teacups. By the admission of the wife, these expenses were “extravagant for someone in [her] position”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> Equally, too, this extravagance sat uneasily with the “tide-over” nature of interim maintenance that was sought in these proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       The wife contended that she had to support her two adult children, who were pursuing university education in Singapore. But she did not provide any estimate for or breakdown of the amount to which she had to support them. Nor did she dispute that the husband had been maintaining each child in the monthly sum of $800. There was little objective evidence that the reasonable expenses of either child exceeded this sum. This left little need for the wife to expend her financial resources on the children.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       Still, the wife had, after commencing these proceedings for interim maintenance, transferred $120,000 of her moneys to the two children. Even if she had done so in a bid to support the two children, there was no evidence that the reasonable expenses of the children consumed all or even most of the $120,000. This was especially when the husband had been maintaining each child in the monthly sum of $800. With that $120,000, the wife could have supported herself for 200 months based on the monthly maintenance of $600 that she sought in these proceedings. Given the willingness of the wife to give such a large sum to the children when she had little need to do so and when the children had not made any demand for such a sum, it was difficult to see how the wife needed any interim maintenance to tide her through the resolution of the divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6       Although the wife was unemployed at the time of these proceedings, she was not without financial resources. By her own estimate, she owned up to $500,000 of securities at least up until October 2023, which was four months after she commenced her claim for interim maintenance. Hence, at least as of the time when these proceedings were commenced, the wife had ample financial resources with which she could have supported herself. On this basis alone, there was no justification to order the husband to provide interim maintenance for the wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7       Even if the wife had sold $300,000 of her securities in October 2023, she continued to own a substantial quantum of securities. Although she had transferred $120,000 of the proceeds from that sale to the children, she would have retained $180,000 of those proceeds. The wife claimed that she had used this balance sum to repay debts but offered scant evidence for or details on those debts. It was thus unclear that the wife lacked the financial resources to maintain herself.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       Ultimately, the touchstone for an assessment of maintenance is that of reasonableness. This inquiry transcended consideration of the parties’ expenses, financial resources, and conduct. On the facts, the wife could reasonably maintain herself with her own financial resources. Further, it was hardly reasonable for her to disenfranchise herself of $120,000, or 200 months of interim maintenance, after commencing these proceedings and when she had no necessity for doing so. It was thus unjustified to have the husband maintain her further.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>WAEIC at pp 11–12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>1NE at p 34.</p></div></content></root> 21e08df7444a5f6c03e2bcf6f1eee95a265b4cf9

Links from other tables