VPU v VPT

[2] The parties were married on 1 March 2015. At the time of the hearing before the DJ, the wife was 33 years old and the husband was 37. The wife is a Traditional Chinese Medicine (“TCM”) physician with a monthly income of $3,000.00. The husband is a Senior Engineer with a monthly net salary of $4,302.00. They have a son, born in January 2016.

[3] From 2015 to 2017, the parties lived separately in their respective parents’ homes, apart from a brief period when they rented a room together. They moved into the matrimonial home, a five-room HDB flat, in December 2017. The wife was working as a TCM physician in March 2015 but resigned in August 2015 because she had complications with her pregnancy. After the child was born, she stayed home to care for the child and only resumed work in July 2017. Around May 2019, the wife left the matrimonial home with the child. The husband still lives there.

[6] In the DJ’s Grounds of Decision dated 8 March 2021 (“GD”), the DJ said that a fundamental principle embodied in Section 114(2) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2007 Rev Ed) (the “Women’s Charter”) is financial preservation, which requires the wife to be maintained at a standard which is, to a reasonable extent, commensurate with the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage (GD at [8]). At the hearing below, the wife’s counsel left the quantum of maintenance to be determined by the court, but submitted that a lump sum of $40,000.00 was appropriate (GD at [11]). The wife said that her monthly household and personal expenses were $2,336.07, but the DJ assessed the wife’s monthly expenses to be $789.24 (GD at [14]).

[8] On appeal before me, counsel for the husband, Ms Yeo, submits that the wife is not entitled to any maintenance. First, she argues that the DJ erred in her finding that “there were financial inequalities between the spouses suffered during the marriage”. In fact, there was no evidence that the wife’s earning capacity was adversely affected during the marriage. She currently earns a comparable income to the husband and can support herself. Second, the DJ assessed the wife’s monthly expenses to be $789.24, and after deducting this and the wife’s share of the child’s expenses from her income, the wife would have $1,829.76 left. The wife does not need an additional monthly sum of $400.00. Furthermore, the wife is entitled to a 42.55% share of the matrimonial home. Since she has already received her fair share of the parties’ wealth, she is not entitled to maintenance.

[10] Counsel for the wife, Mr Ho, submits that the wife is financially disadvantaged post-divorce as she stopped working between August 2015 and July 2017 to care for the son, which affected her career. Even after July 2017, she could only work part-time because she had to focus on caring for the child, and she only managed to increase her salary back to pre-pregnancy levels in December 2017. Furthermore, as the sole proprietor of a TCM business, she is “vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of the general economy” and has “no certainty to her salary”. In contrast, the husband is a salaried worker who enjoys “relative security of income”. Although his monthly take-home pay is $4,302.00, this does not include his bonuses, which resulted in him earning $6,469.75 per month in 2019. Thus, the wife earns less than half what the husband earns.

[11] Second, there remain financial inequalities between the parties after the division of matrimonial assets. The husband is now the sole owner of a “large and comfortable” five-room HDB flat. However, the wife will only have about $106,919.00 in liquid assets after the payment from the husband for the matrimonial home, and another $24,783.00 which is “locked up” in her CPF accounts. This $106,919.00, along with her monthly income of $3,000.00, is not enough to buy a “decent home” for herself and the child, and she would have to buy a much smaller flat or live with relatives.

[12] I first consider the parties’ incomes and expenses. According to the Appellant’s Case dated 9 April 2021 (the “Appellant’s Case”), the husband has a net monthly income of $4,302.00 and his monthly personal expenses are $3,831.00. According to the husband’s counsel’s written submissions for the hearing below dated 9 October 2020, his personal expenses include monthly maintenance of $886.00 for the child. The husband also pays $300.00 for his father’s expenses. This amounts to $4,131.00, leaving the husband with $171.00 each month. If the husband’s bonuses are included, ie if he continues earning $6,469.75 every month as he did in 2019, this will leave him with $2,338.75.

[13] As for the wife, she earns $3,000.00 a month. After deducting her expenses of $789.24 and the wife’s share of the child’s expenses from her income, the wife would have $1,829.76 left each month.

[14] In the Respondent’s Case dated 10 May 2021 (the “Respondent’s Case”), counsel argues that the wife’s actual expenditure is higher than what the DJ assessed. However, in my judgment, the DJ’s assessment of the wife’s expenditure was not against the weight of the evidence. I also think that both parties have about the same income, although the husband would earn more than the wife if he receives bonuses. Both also have similar earning capacities. They are both young and healthy, and can work to provide for themselves. The wife’s occupation is a business, and her vulnerability to the ebbs and flows of the general economy is not necessarily a downward trend. Indeed, she might become twice as successful, but for the moment, we have no evidence either way.

[15] At the hearing before me on 19 May 2021, I asked counsel how much the husband would have to pay the wife for her 42.55% share of the matrimonial home. Counsel said that the parties had not yet done a valuation of the matrimonial home and gave me several different figures. First, Ms Yeo said that the husband would pay the wife $93,000.00. Mr Ho then said that the DJ indicated in her GD that the value of the flat was $436,000.00 (excluding the outstanding mortgage loan). Based on this value, Ms Yeo said that the husband would have to pay the wife $82,972.00, though in the Appellant’s Case she had stated that this would be $84,469.30. Finally, Mr Ho said that the exact amount, which was not in the affidavits, was calculated by HDB to be $85,607.00, though in the Respondent’s Case he had stated that this would be about $82,566.00. Counsel also submitted that about $24,000.00 of this sum will have to be returned to the wife’s CPF account.

[16] Since a final valuation has not been done for the matrimonial home and counsel is unable to assist me, I do not know the exact amount the wife will receive from the husband for her 42.55% share of the matrimonial home. However, even if it is the lowest figure of $82,566.00, when added to the money in her bank accounts, insurance policy surrender values, and the existing money in her CPF Ordinary Account, she would have about $106,919.00.

[17] This is not an insubstantial sum. The wife could use this money for the down-payment on a new HDB flat if she wishes. It may be smaller than the five-room HDB flat where the husband lives, but that does not mean it will not be a “decent home”. The wife cannot expect to have the exact same standard of living as she did when the parties were married. The reality of divorce is that both parties will have less money than they had during the marriage. In my judgment, the wife is self-sufficient and does not require maintenance for herself.

[18] In the Respondent’s Case, the wife’s counsel argued that the wife’s expenses will “skyrocket” when she finds a home for herself and the child, due to rental or mortgage payments, town council fees, and purchase and replacement of furniture and appliances. “Skyrocket” seems a little bit of an exaggeration in the circumstances, and in any event, it is up to the wife to ensure that she finds a home within her means such that her expenses do not “skyrocket”.