3 days ago
In Singapore, woman gets just S$1 in divorce, but ex loses bigger share over misconduct
SINGAPORE, June 2 — A woman's bid for S$2,500 (RM8,255) in monthly maintenance from her former husband has been dismissed by the Singapore High Court, but the judge reduced the man's share of their marital assets by 10 per cent, citing his repeated attempts to sabotage the marriage and his ex-wife's welfare.
In a judgment delivered on May 7, and reported by The Straits Times today, Justice Choo Han Teck upheld an earlier district court's decision to award the 39-year-old woman nominal maintenance of S$1 per month, while increasing her share of their matrimonial flat from 20 to 25 per cent. She was also granted more than S$52,000 from other assets.
The woman, an administrative assistant earning S$2,340 a month, had appealed against the nominal award, citing her limited means and inability to purchase a flat on her own as a Singapore permanent resident.
Her lawyer, Russell Thio of Emerald Law, reportedly argued that the district judge had failed to fully consider her accommodation needs.
Her former husband, a 46-year-old regular serviceman in the Singapore Armed Forces earning S$5,212 a month, was represented by Sarbrinder Singh Naranjan Singh and Nicholas Say of Sanders Law.
Justice Choo, however, found no basis for increasing the maintenance.
'She has not shown that her pay is insufficient to meet her monthly expenses, including housing, or that she has exhausted all means to find accommodation,' he was quoted as saying.
He maintained the nominal S$1 order, which he described as 'a sum as inconsequential in substance as it is in appearance'.
He added: 'However, as the Court of Appeal has held otherwise, I will leave the S$1 order intact.'
Despite denying the woman a larger monthly sum, Justice Choo penalised her ex-husband financially, awarding him a smaller share of the assets to reflect the court's disapproval of his conduct.
Lawyers said the court used the asset division to send a clear signal about the consequences of such behaviour.
The man had repeatedly denied his ex-wife access to their daughter, now 12, and was found in contempt of court for breaching access orders.
He also attempted to send the woman back to India and petitioned HDB to take over their flat, which she had been paying for after he refused to let her co-own or contribute officially to the mortgage.
Justice Choo noted that the HDB eventually refunded her contributions and she was evicted from the flat with police assistance.
The court found that the man's actions had effectively denied her a share in any potential open-market sale proceeds.
