fc_judgments_version: 96

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_item_full_hash
96	80	1	1809	[ "Ancillary Matters \u2013 Care and control of children \u2013 Division of matrimonial assets \u2013 Maintenance for ex-spouse and children" ]	2024-09-25	Family Court	FC/D 5501/2022	XCA v XBZ	[2024] SGFC 71	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%2F32213-SSP.xml	[ "Gurmeet Kaur D/O Amar Singh (Harjeet Singh & Co) for the Plaintiff", "Wong Shoou-Huang Jonathan (Tembusu Law LLC) for the Defendant." ]	2024-10-01T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Shobha Nair	<root><head><title>XCA v XBZ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XCA <em>v</em> XBZ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32213-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 71</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">FC/D 5501/2022</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">25 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"> Shobha Nair </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"> Gurmeet Kaur D/O Amar Singh (Harjeet Singh & Co) for the Plaintiff; Wong Shoou-Huang Jonathan (Tembusu Law 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"> XCA — XBZ </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Ancillary Matters</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Care and control of children</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Division of matrimonial assets</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Maintenance for ex-spouse and children</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">25 September 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Shobha Nair:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The plaintiff (husband/father) and the defendant (wife/mother) were married in February of 2006. They have three (3) children. Interim judgment (IJ) dissolving the marriage on the ground of unreasonable behaviour by both parties was entered on 6 July 2023. All ancillary matters were contested.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The following were my orders on the ancillary matters against which the wife appeals.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_a"></a> <b>(a) Custody, Care and Control of the 3 children</b> </p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_a-p3_i"></a>(i) The parties are to have joint custody of the 3 children with care and control to the father.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_a-p3_ii"></a>(ii) All official documents of the children namely birth certificates, passports etc. are to be in the possession of the father.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_a-p3_iii"></a>(iii) All applications which are necessary for the children to be allowed to travel and continue to receive education and medical care in Singapore may be made by the father without the consent of the mother in the event parties are unable to agree.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_a-p3_iv"></a>(iv) The mother shall have liberal access to the children which includes physical access after school hours and remote access. Such access shall be arranged by the mother directly with the 3 children. The mother shall accommodate the children’s school commitments when making these arrangements. For the avoidance of doubt, no overnight access is permitted at this time unless the 3 children indicate to the mother that they wish to spend the nights with her and the father shall allow the same. In the event overnight access is agreed to, at least two (2) children are to be present during the same.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_a-p3_v"></a>(v) Notwithstanding the above, all 3 children are to meet with their mother (together) at least once every week for at least 3 hours over lunch or dinner, preferably over the weekends. The mother and the eldest child (on behalf of the other 2 children) are to communicate on this arrangement every week.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_a-p3_vi"></a>(vi) The mother may organise travel abroad with the 3 children on condition that these take place during school holidays; at least 2 children travel together; and full information on travel destination/accommodation/contact details are provided to the father. In the event third persons are to accompany the mother on these trips, the names are to be informed to the father. This shall apply to the father as well in the event he wishes to travel with the 3 children save that he may choose to travel with any 1 child at a time.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_b"></a> <b>(b) Maintenance for the children</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>The father shall maintain the 3 children without contribution from the mother.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_c"></a> <b>(c) Maintenance for the Wife</b> </p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a>The husband shall pay $2,000 per month as maintenance for the wife for a period of 2 years only with effect from 1 July 2024 and thereafter on the 1<sup>st</sup> day of each calendar month. Payment into the wife’s DBS Bank Account No: XXX-X-XXXX82.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_2-p2_d"></a> <b>(d) Matrimonial Assets</b> </p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_i"></a>(i) The property at XXX (the matrimonial flat) shall be sold within 4 months and the net value after payment towards the outstanding housing loan and expenses related to the sale (legal/agency fees) shall be divided in the proportion 75% to the husband and 25% to the wife. The husband shall have the first option to purchase the wife’s 25% share in the flat within 1 month from 20 June 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_ii"></a>(ii) The husband shall be responsible for the refund of his CPF monies utilised for the purchase of the matrimonial home.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_iii"></a>(iii) The parties are to conduct the sale of the matrimonial home jointly.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_iv"></a>(iv) The Registrar of the Family Justice Courts shall be empowered to execute necessary documents on behalf of either party in the event of refusal to act by either party within 7 days of written request made to that party.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_v"></a>(v) The property in Malaysia at YYY (Malaysian property) shall be transferred to the husband by the wife and the husband shall continue to pay towards the outstanding loan.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_vi"></a>(vi) The wife shall leave the rented premises within 2 months of the date of this order.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_vii"></a>(vii) All assets in the sole names of the husband and wife shall remain with the respective parties.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_2-p2_d-p3_viii"></a>(viii) Any and all joint bank accounts shall be closed, and the monies divided equally.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Factual Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 Parties had been married for 17 years and 4 months at the time the IJ was issued. The husband is 53 years of age and a Managing Director of a global logistics company. He is a German citizen. The wife is 46 years old and a Singaporean. There was dispute as to her employment status. While she worked in various capacities prior to her marriage, it was her position that she was asked by her husband to be a homemaker upon marriage. She claimed to have only taken on various ad hoc or part-time work over short periods of time. She claimed therefore that she was not earning a regular nor consistent amount of income. The husband pointed to various work engagements that she had taken on especially as a real estate agent. He was of the view that she was earning more than she was willing to declare and that she had the capacity to work as she holds a degree in business administration and had experience and skills to support the family if she wanted to. One of the key concerns in this case was the wife’s challenges with mental health and its impact on her ability to work and parent effectively.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The couple have 3 children. The eldest child is a child of the wife from a previous relationship. The husband embraced the child as a child of the family on marrying the plaintiff in 2006. The child was formally adopted in September 2006. He is currently a polytechnic student. There are 2 biological children from the marriage, a son who is 17 years of age and pursuing post-secondary education at the Institute of Technical Education and a daughter who is 9 and in primary 3.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 Parties resided in a 5-room Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat (matrimonial flat) until 2014 when they rented a terrace house for more space to accommodate the growing needs of the family. The husband claimed that the wife wanted a rather more luxurious life and that this move was initiated largely on that account. The matrimonial flat was rented out for between $3,000 - $4,000 every month. The wife received the rental income which she would then transfer into a joint account held by the couple after keeping a sum of $500 for her allowance. The money was then used to pay for the rent of the terrace house they moved into. Given that the rent for the house was between $5,000 and $5,500 monthly, the additional amount was paid for by the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 It was the husband’s position that the monies in the joint account was being used by the wife for unnecessary expenses and without proper accounting. He chose to stop depositing his salary into their joint account and the wife responded by keeping the rental income in her sole account from January 2022.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Matrimonial assets and the appropriate approach to its division</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The power of a court to divide matrimonial assets when or subsequent to a grant of judgment of divorce is found in s 112(1) of the Women’s Charter (1961). The division, taking into account the non-exhaustive factors found in s 112(2) of the Charter, is to be in proportions which a court deems just and equitable.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 A matrimonial asset is defined in s 112(10) to mean any asset acquired <em>before the marriage</em> by one party or both parties to the marriage either ordinarily used or enjoyed by both parties or one or more their children while the parties are residing together for certain purposes, <em>or</em> which has been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage. A matrimonial asset also refers to any asset of any nature acquired <em>during the marriage</em> by one or both parties. The section also addresses the nature of gifts acquired by one or both parties.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 Other than the estimated values of the matrimonial flat and the Malaysian property and different positions on the ownership of a family car, the parties were largely in agreement on the pool of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 For the matrimonial flat the husband provided an estimate of $750,000 based on listings on a website known as <em>property guru</em> a month after the IJ was granted. The wife provided an initial estimate of $840,000 based on information that existed prior to the grant of IJ but in her subsequent affidavit she provided an estimate of between $790,000 - $840,000, taken from the HDB <em>InfoWeb</em> resale flat prices enquiry.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> I took the average of the highest estimates provided by the parties for the matrimonial flat given that the sources relied on were reliable. The estimate provided by the husband for the Malaysian property however was in my view a more accurate estimate as the wife seemed to rely on rather casual conversations with a real estate agent<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span>. She also did not know of the outstanding loan for this property as her husband financed the same as he did the matrimonial flat, the latter from his CPF funds. The Malaysian property had a negative equity value.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Although the wife referred to a BMW family car as a joint asset, this was registered under the husband’s name and paid for by him though driven principally by the wife. Separately, the husband was provided with a vehicle by the company he worked for. The BMW driven by the wife was sold and proceeds should appropriately be reflected as part of the husband’s assets and not a jointly held asset. The wife had lost her driving licence in 2022 arising from road traffic related offences including a drink driving conviction.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I removed from the pool of assets, 2 bank accounts the wife held jointly with her eldest son and with her daughter, respectively. The first was a POSB Kids account with a relatively modest sum of $28.05. This account was used to meet the son’s expenses. The second is a Child Development Account (CDA) she held with her daughter, and which contained $19,511.81. This account can only be used for fixed purposes largely related to the daughter’s education and any unused amount will be transferred to the daughter’s post-secondary education account on her turning 12 years of age.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Parties in their submissions confirmed that the various insurance policies would not be part of the pool of assets. These policies do not offer any value if surrendered, were paid for by the husband solely and continued coverage would benefit the named beneficiaries. Three policies were for the eldest child, four policies were taken out for the second child and three for the youngest child. There were payments made by the husband for fire insurance, family travel and cord blood storage facilities. The husband had six policies while the wife had two health policies amounting to about $3,426 a year ($285.50 a month) and a critical illness plan which had a monthly premium of $92.20. As these payments were made from the couple’s joint account, this was taken into consideration when the division of matrimonial assets and spousal maintenance were considered and determined.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The pool of matrimonial assets are therefore as follows<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span>:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="50%"><col width="50%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Joint Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Value (in S$)</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Matrimonial Home [Housing and Development Board flat located at Clementi (HDB Flat)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$795,000 (estimate is based on the average of the highest figures provided by both parties)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Condominium in Johor Bahru, Malaysia (Malaysian property)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$102,382.35 (estimate provided by the husband based on the property guru website <em>as at</em> 19 Aug 2023)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Joint Savings Account (husband and wife)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$246.02</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Maybank Joint Savings Account (husband and wife)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$279.13</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><em>Sub-Total</em></b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$897, 907.50</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-2"><a id=""></a> </p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="50.44%"><col width="49.56%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Husband’s Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Value (in S$)</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Motor Vehicle - BMW 630 </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$41,006.56 – net sale proceeds </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Monies in Central Provident Fund (CPF) Accounts </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Ordinary Account: $43,513.33</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Special Account: $228,645.35</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Medisave Account: $68,451.33</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS My Savings Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$457.75</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Multiplier Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$16,784.31</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Savings Plus Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$3,886.20</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Trust Bank </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$303.69</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Comdirect</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$296.70</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><em>Sub-Total</em></b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$403 345.22</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Wife’s Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Value (in S$)</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Monies in Central Provident Fund (CPF) Accounts</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Ordinary Account: $29, 021.53</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Special Account: $58,312.17</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Medisave Account: $8,324.89</p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Investment Account: </p> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$10,140.32</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">SRS (OCBC) Retirement Account </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$30,618.33</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">OCBC Plus Savings Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$153,027.53</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Multiplier Account </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$50,659.34</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Savings Plus Account </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$36,194.98</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS <em>Paylah</em> Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$212.08</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><em>Sub Total</em></b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$376, 511.17</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Gross value of assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$1,677,763.89</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The parties agreed on the liabilities which should be accounted for and deducted from the pool of assets before division. The counsel for the defendant however included in his submissions 2 liabilities of the wife that were not addressed in her affidavits, namely, a DBS YUU Visa Card with an outstanding amount of $11.98 as at 14 August 2023 and another for a POSB everyday card for an amount of $81.36 as at 14 August 2023.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> I did not take these into account as these were not explained in the affidavits and the values in any event, were negligible.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 As observed by the court in <b>WNR</b> v <b>WNQ</b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30472-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 43</a>, if the liabilities existed as at the time of the IJ and they were not incurred inappropriately, all such liabilities should be deducted from the pool of assets before division. The following were therefore the liabilities:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="50.58%"><col width="49.42%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Liabilities</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Amount (in S$)</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Outstanding Loan for HDB flat</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$152, 269. 25</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Outstanding Loan for Malaysian property </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$141,319.25 (note: the loan is higher than the estimated value of the property)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Balance Transfer (husband)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$55,074.10</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">OCBC Balance Transfer (husband)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$31,200.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Outstanding Income Tax (husband)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$52,137.02</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Outstanding Property Tax (husband and wife)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$517.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><em>Sub-Total</em></b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$432,516.62</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Net Value of Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$ 1,245,247.27</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 Counsel for the husband submitted his position on the division of assets using the structured approach laid out by the Court of Appeal in <b><em>ANJ</em></b> v <b><em>ANK</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17925-SSP.xml')">[2015] 4 SLR 1043</a> and accordingly sought a division in the proportion 85:15 in his favour. The counsel for the wife argued that this case involved a long marriage where the wife was largely a homemaker although she may have taken part-time assignments. He argued for the application of the approach in <b><em>TNL</em></b> v <b><em>TNK and another appeal</em></b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/20026-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGCA 15</a> where mutual respect for spousal contributions in both economic and homemaking spheres was urged and the court was in “general agreement” towards an equal division in long single-income marriages.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> While the Court of Appeal in <em>TNL</em> defined single income marriages as marriages where one spouse is the sole income earner and the other plays the role of homemaker, counsel highlighted various authorities<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span> that adopt this definition to effectively mean marriages where one spouse takes on the primary responsibility for the financial needs of the family while the other takes on the primary role of homemaker. I agreed with counsel.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In this case, when the husband pointed out that his wife had been employed in the past and was significantly involved in real estate work as an agent on an ad hoc/part-time capacity, she confirmed that she did indeed work but never had any consistent pattern of work or income. Her bank balances showed large enough amounts to certainly question her position but the evidence pointing to any regular income was not scant. It appeared that she was well provided for by her husband and/or was able to obtain good income from certain assignments, likely in the real estate arena.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 On the evidence, the dichotomy between the primary breadwinner and primary homemaker was evident during this marriage, regardless of the positions that each took on the reasons why the wife stayed at home. It is well in keeping with the spirit of <em>TNL</em> and I approached the task of division with the principles of <em>TNL</em> in mind. Having said that however, the facts presented in this case required a more cautious approach. Being at home does not make one a homemaker. The latter requires active and often, constant engagement with the numerous aspects of family life ranging from household chores to the management of children, their needs and their schedules. Additionally, often in relatively long marriages, the nature of engagement at home may change either because children may not require the same level of support throughout the time of the marriage or circumstances such as poor health prevent full participation, as was seen in this case.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Division of the matrimonial assets </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The wife who appeals against my orders had in her affidavit sought a transfer of the husband’s share, interest and title in the matrimonial flat free from encumbrances and without any refund of his CPF monies. She additionally sought that the Malaysian property and all other assets be divided equitably.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> In her skeletal submissions however, her counsel sought on the basis of <em>TNL</em> and various cases where the marriage was “moderately long” of between 15-18 years, a division of 35-40% of the matrimonial assets.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> It went on to additionally seek the transfer of the matrimonial flat to the wife, free from encumbrances and without refund of the husband’s CPF monies. I found these requests to be at odds. If the interests of the husband in the matrimonial flat were transferred to the wife free from encumbrances and without any refund of his CPF monies, she essentially would be getting a lot more than the 35-40% of the matrimonial assets. A 40% share of the net value of <em>all</em> the matrimonial assets based on the tables above, would be $498,098.91. An entitlement to the HDB flat by way of a transfer without having to pay any consideration, however, provides her with $643,730.75 which is more than 50% of the net value of matrimonial assets. This is not in keeping even with the approach in <em>TNL</em> which leans toward an equal division in long marriages. Regardless, I agreed with the approach submitted by the wife’s counsel but gave it effect as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_20-p2_a"></a>(a) A 25% share of the net value of the matrimonial flat which in real terms would be approximately <b>$160, 682.69</b> (based on 25 % of $642, 730.75 which is the net value after deducting the outstanding loan of $152,269.25 from the estimate sale price of $795,000);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_20-p2_b"></a>(b) Her ability to retain her significant pool of solely held assets totalling <b>$376, 511.17</b>; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_20-p2_c"></a>(c) Half of the amounts in 2 joint accounts with her husband (DBS and Maybank) totalling a modest <b>$262.60</b></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 The orders above give the wife a total of <b>$537,456.46</b> which is effectively <b>43.16%</b> of the net value of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 While the husband in this case cannot be said to have insisted that the wife stay home, it appears that the healthy income the husband was drawing and the move from Shanghai to Singapore with the eldest child allowed and/or necessitated the wife to continue to be present for the family on arriving in Singapore. The birth of their second and third children in 2007 and 2015 respectively would have meant a high degree of involvement with their care during infancy and young childhood, even with the assistance of helpers. I also did not doubt that she was present for them in routine matters like parent-teacher meetings and involved herself in their school and enrichment activities especially, in the early part of her sons’ childhood. Her acumen in handling renovation works, managing the helpers, sourcing and managing the tenants at the matrimonial flat should be given due credit.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> Her work as a real estate agent at least till 2018 shows a certain strength and perseverance and would have assisted in some of the expenses of the family. Her continued desire to improve her skills is also evident when she obtained certification as a fitness instructor in 2020 and certification in digital marketing in 2021. At the same time, I did not think that her engagement at home was as involved as she made it out to be through the entire course of the marriage. This can be attributable to her mental health concerns. Additionally, a significant part of what she said were her indirect contributions related to the fact of pregnancy and having delivered her daughter in 2015 after what must have been a very traumatic period when her third pregnancy ended in a still birth in 2014. It is in my view rather dangerous to look at having children in and of itself as a contribution which should in some way be considered and even compensated. The trials and trauma often associated with childbearing and a challenging delivery process are certainly not to be minimised but in the context of assessing relevant contributions, I was mindful not to give it undue weight. Parenting is the focus rather more than having children. Notwithstanding, I was of the view that the contributions of the wife in the larger context of a marriage that lasted a little more than 17 years made a ballpark share of 40% of the assets, a fair one.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Moving beyond a 40 % share is not unusual if there are factors which warrant an uplift.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span> What stood out in the case before me and is of considerable concern is the mental health challenges faced by the wife which appear to have impeded her ability to contribute to her maximum capacity, even if she had wanted to. She spoke of how she has Thalassaemia, Adjustment Disorder for which she first sought treatment in 2011, post-natal depression in 2014, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in 2020 and for which she still seeks treatment, alcohol dependency for which she is receiving help to overcome and cervical spondylosis diagnosed in 2015.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> While clearly the physical ailments are not of a nature that would disable her from being active and productive, the MDD and alcohol dependency are of concern. The path to recovery takes time and a lot of effort. Any dramatic changes such as divorce and what it means from a financial and emotional standpoint needs to be appreciated. It is of course not the task of a court to attempt to assist this path of recovery by overstating what she should receive by way a division of assets. However, the pool of assets had to be distributed in a way that recognised the need for her to find accommodation of her own after more than 17 years of being largely supported by her husband who was well placed in his employment and could provide substantially for the family. She cannot be expected to simply overcome her mental health challenges and even with the best of efforts, it does take time and resolve. At the same time, I did not see it fair to place an unnecessary burden on the husband by imposing a responsibility to provide monthly maintenance for the long term or a lump sum amount to cater for her circumstances especially given my orders on the care and control of the children which I shall elaborate on further. I chose instead to afford a more generous division of the assets to allow a fair recognition of the past and adequate provision for the wife’s future. Section 112 (2) (h) of the Charter allows factors under s 114 to be taken into account insofar as those factors are relevant. The wife’s financial needs for the foreseeable future given her mental health challenges and the standard of living she was used to are factors that I felt necessary to bring into play.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Care and Control of the children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 Parties agreed to have joint custody of the children but contested care and control of them. I accepted that the father was better placed to care for the children at this time and was of the view that any effort to place them in the care of their mother would compromise their interests.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 It was the father’s position that the children were traumatised by their mother who was often violent when under the influence alcohol.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> He also claimed that she spent most of her time in her bedroom and the chores were done by the domestic helpers while he attended to most of the needs of the children. The wife’s version was diametrically opposed. One of the key concerns was also the care of the third child. As a young daughter, the mother felt that she would benefit from being in her care more so than the boys who were closing in on adulthood.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Even as mental health concerns do not necessarily hinder parents from parenting effectively, much depends on the nature and degree of difficulty. The impact on children may also vary. I spoke with the children together with a psychologist from the counselling and psychological services (CAPs) unit of the family justice courts to understand better what they felt.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span> The psychologist had a few minutes with the children before I spoke with them to ensure they were comfortable meeting with me.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span> My meeting with them was both helpful and sealed my view and the need to have the father care for them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 It is without doubt that these children are loved by their parents. It is equally without doubt that the children love their parents. However, the mother’s current lack of ability to effectively parent the children due to her struggles with depression and excessive alcohol consumption requires a better plan of care at least for the immediate future. I accepted the position of the father that the mother spends much time in isolation and most of the caregiving is done by him and the helper(s). I do not have any reason to doubt the children who shared this too.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 The boys are at an age (20 and 17, respectively) where the same level of involvement they would have required when they were younger is no longer needed. Much time is spent in school and with friends. National service is also around the corner for both boys. The eldest will be enlisted after he finishes with his polytechnic education by which time he would be closing in on 21 years of age. Depending on the educational path of the second son, national service is also in the near horizon. The daughter is at an age however, which may require the physical and emotional presence of her mother. Her mother however is not able to meet the needs of her young daughter fully and effectively. I am of the view that placing her in an environment where she would need to continuously witness her mother’s emotional turbulence would compromise her growth and general welfare. I was not confident having heard from all the children, that their mother is in a space currently to put her children first. She would need to stay on course towards recovery before this can happen.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 The mother presented a letter from her treating doctor at SGH dated 30 May 2024.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span> The doctor shared that the mother was on 5 medications which included an antidepressant, a major tranquiliser, 2 sleeping tables and an antihistamine. He believed that with treatment, her depressive symptoms have come under control but that “<em>her prognosis is less than favourable considering her ongoing use of alcohol</em>”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span> He was of the view that she did not pose any physical harm to the children and there was no evidence to suggest she was not a good parent. Even then, the doctor shared concerns about her use of alcohol for which she attends Alcoholic Anonymous and obtains guidance and treatment from the National Additions Management Services (NAMS). I did not disagree with the position that she poses no physical threat to the children even though her husband stated that there were times when she was violent. What I was deeply concerned about was the emotional toil that she may be exerting on the children and her lack of ability to provide the sense of stability and peace that her children deserve. Additionally, the 3 children would need to be together under the same roof as the boys offer much help and support to their young sister. It was clear during my conversation with each child separately that they want very much to be together and in the home of their father. Separating them would place considerable stress and emotional harm on them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 I was confident of the care the father was providing the children and which the children themselves articulated with ease and honesty. It is hoped that the good care that the father has been providing will enable the children to grow well and embrace various opportunities ahead of them. I see these children as having immense potential if they are free from the worry they all shared about their mother’s wellbeing. It is almost poignant that they expressed a desire to see her because they did not want her to do poorly without them around. Yet it is their mother who is seeking to care for them. The palpable irony of these articulated emotions speak of children wanting to parent the parent. But they are the children. They cannot be the adults. They need the opportunity to achieve their dreams through education, work, and healthy relationships. The orders are meant to give them the conditions to enable this. The orders are not meant to remove their mother from their lives but to allow for a safe space to have the relationship develop in positive ways. I am sure the children want to be with the mother they knew when they were younger and not the person their mother becomes under the volatile combination of alcohol and medication.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 Despite the brief interaction with the children, I was deeply impressed by them. They were open and mature. They loved their parents in equal measure. They understood that their mother was struggling. The challenges the family has faced has most certainly impacted them but with proper guidance, they have the capacity to move beyond the struggles. I encourage the father to explore ways such as counselling during which time the children can address their emotions openly.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance for children</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 Maintenance of children is a joint responsibility placed on parents.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span>The husband did not seek any financial support from the wife should he retain care and control of the children. The wife did not offer any. I made no orders for the wife to provide.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Maintenance for the ex-wife</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 There was an interim maintenance order in place which provided for an amount of $15,315 per month to the wife that included payment for the terrace house they were renting, various household bills and the children’s expenses. The maintenance needed to be re-assessed in the context of changed circumstances especially with regards separate accommodation moving forward and the fact that the children’s expenses were to be handled by the husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 Section 114 of the Charter provides for a court to order reasonable maintenance for ex-wives with a set of guiding factors for that determination. In her affidavit of assets and means, the wife sought $15,000 per month as maintenance for herself which would be almost 70% of the net monthly income of the husband which stood at approximately $21,507 monthly.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span> The personal expenses of the wife amounting to $6,920 monthly were itemised and kept distinct from household and children’s expenses which stood at $14,048.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span> Clearly many of the household and children’s expenses such as monthly rent at $5,500 and children’s food and school expenses are no longer relevant. Even if one were to look at personal expenses, many items related to grooming, gym facilities and travel and are not items that could be said to be reasonable for the husband to bear indefinitely. The wife requested in the alternative, a lump sum of maintenance. I did not think this appropriate given the position I took on the care of the children and the need to preserve resources for their immediate needs including accommodation. In fact, the husband had far less in his bank accounts than his wife. I ordered that the wife be provided $2,000 per month instead for a period of 2 years only. My reasons are as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_34-p2_a"></a>(a) The husband has the sole responsibility of meeting the children’s needs which would likely involve tertiary education expenses for the boys in the foreseeable future. He is 53 years of age and would need to find a clear and consistent balance between meeting his retirement needs, supporting his children and ensuring a roof over their heads given that the matrimonial flat would be sold. There is no extended family support. The wife has her mother and sister in Singapore. In seeking care and control she had also proposed that they live temporarily with her in her mother’s house and spoke of her ability to provide care despite her medical conditions. Yet in her request for maintenance, she spoke of the need to find her own accommodation as her relationship with her mother had its own challenges, be supported on account of her health conditions, and her inability to keep a job that would cater for her expenses. Despite her mental health challenges, she has been able to find work. She can choose to do so and is in a position to focus on work and build on her resources.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_34-p2_b"></a>(b) While the challenges posed by MDD and excessive alcohol consumption cannot be denied, it would be wrong to enable a lack of resolve in taking focussed and consistent steps towards recovery, by continued reliance on the husband’s provision for the long term. Maintenance cannot be used to support a lifestyle of heavy drinking. She has capacity, experience, educational qualifications and good contacts to take fresh steps to work and support herself. Counsel’s submission that s 114(1)(e) which makes physical and mental disability a relevant consideration in the assessment of maintenance appears to suggest that the mental health concerns of the wife ought to be considered as forms of mental disability.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span> I did not agree. A large part of the current challenge as indicated by her treating doctor is the consumption of alcohol while being treated for MDD. This has not prevented her from functioning well in a work setting and she strongly defended her ability to care for her children. She is not incapacitated. What she does need is continued assistance and time to work through her challenges. She has to take steps to support herself and the lifestyle she wishes to lead.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_34-p2_c"></a>(c) The provision of $2,000 per month for a period of 2 years is to assist her with reasonable expenses over a reasonable period including keeping up with insurance premiums which were previously paid by the husband, while she regains her strength and independence. Free from the need to support her children, she would be able to do so if she exercises that choice. She has sufficient resources as well to carry her through the next few years even if she chooses not to work on a full-time basis.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 The mental health challenges the wife faces has impacted the family adversely. At the same time, the relative strength of the husband and children and their support and love for the wife/mother, speak of a good future. The order on care and control sought to provide opportunity for the children to grow in a healthy environment while maintaining links with their mother. The orders on the division of the matrimonial assets and maintenance while largely based on the factors provided by the Charter, sought to provide to each party a reasonable ability to move in a positive direction to build new lives while they continue with their most important role – as parents.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Correspondence dated 11 June 2024 – both counsel were to submit on costs within one week of the orders, if costs were not agreed to. The wife had not provided her submissions but filed an application for a stay of the orders pending appeal. The application for a stay was dismissed on 23 September 2024 with no order as to costs. Costs of $8 000 (all in) was ordered to be paid by the wife for D5501/2022 after hearing from her at the hearing on 23 September 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>See also <b>CLC</b> v <b>CLB</b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29414-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGCA 10</a>.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Paragraph 14 of the wife’s second affidavit filed on 23 October 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Ibid. at paragraph 15 and Tab D at page 28.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Paragraph 11 of wife’s affidavit of 11 September 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Paragraph 2 of the husband’s affidavit of 11 September 2023 and paragraph 3 of the wife’s affidavit of 11 September 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Paragraph 40 of the skeletal submissions filed on 26 March 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>At paragraph 45.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>For example, <b>UBM</b> v <b>UBN</b> [2017] 4 SGHCF 13.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Paragraph 37 of the wife’s affidavit of 27 April 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Paragraph 22(a) of the wife’s skeletal submissions. In this regard see in particularBOR v BOS <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/22441-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGCA 78</a>.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Paragraphs 23-44 of the wife’ affidavit of 11 September 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>In <b>VJV</b> v <b>VJW</b> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27795-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGHCF 18</a> for example, the High Court affirmed the decision of a district judge who had considered the fact that the wife had been taking care of a child with special needs in ordering an equal division of assets.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Paragraph 6 of the wife’s affidavit of 23 October 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Section 114 (1)(b) and (c) of the Charter, respectively.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Paragraphs 38-39 of the husband’s affidavit of 23 October 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup><b>WKM</b> v <b>WKN</b> (2024) SGCA 1 speaks of the ability of the court to conduct judicial interviews and provides guidance on how these are to be conducted.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Confidential Brief Notes (dated 3 May 2024) were put up by the psychologist.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>This is enclosed in a document titled “Other Hearing Related Request of 31 May 2024”.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>Page 3 of the report of 30 May 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>S 68 of the Women’s Charter.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>Paragraph 2(b) on pages 3-4 of the wife’s written submissions.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>Paragraph 18 of affidavit of 11 September 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>Paragraph 20 of the wife’s counsel’s skeletal submissions dated 26 March 2024.</p></div></content></root>	5f49965c50fdf8d60cb57ba19337bd5eaabb83ef

Links from other tables

11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed