YHU v YHV [2026] SGFC 118

Introduction

While not all parties are able to afford legal representation and parties are fully at liberty to act in person for divorce proceedings, the assistance of good legal counsel can significantly improve the cogency of evidence presented and the soundness of arguments made. In this case, the Plaintiff Wife (the “Wife”) and the Defendant Husband (the “Husband”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”) were both acting in person for the ancillary matters and raised very complicated facts and allegations, and they would have been greatly assisted by competent family law counsel that are seasoned in therapeutic justice.

The ancillary matters in this case involved allegations of material non-disclosure for the drawing of an adverse inference, premarital assets, disputed agreements and assets, clawback for dissipation and rent-free occupation in relation to the division of matrimonial assets and further involved issues of the custody, care and control and access to children, as well as spousal and children maintenance. Such issues can become quite complex and parties need to consider the difficulties in engaging in such complicated matters without the assistance of proper legal advice in whether they feel that they could go it alone or whether they would be better positioned with the assistance of legal counsel, particularly when the asset pool is not insignificant.

Facts

The parties

The Parties were married in China on 5 July 2013. The Parties were originally citizens of the People’s Republic of China. While the Husband subsequently took on Singapore Citizenship, the Wife remained a Singapore Permanent Resident. The Wife was in her mid-30s and the Husband was in his mid-40s. Both of them were university graduates with the Wife working in sales and the Husband being a businessman.

Both Parties were initially represented, but by the time they had proceeded to the hearing of Ancillary Matters, both of them had discharged their lawyers and were self-represented. The Husband had discharged his lawyers whilst parties were in the midst of mediation on 5 August 2024. The Wife discharged her lawyers on 28 June 2025, whilst parties were in the midst of interlocutory applications for disclosure and other matters.

While the Husband was able to converse comfortably in English, the Wife spoke primarily Mandarin and required the assistance of an interpreter when making representations to the Court.

The Parties have a daughter aged 12 (the “Daughter”) and a son aged 10 (the “Son”) as of the time of the decision (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “Children”).

Background to the dispute

The divorce was commenced by the Wife on 14 November 2023. Parties settled on grounds for divorce on an uncontested basis and interim judgment was granted on the Husband’s counterclaim, that the Wife had behaved in a manner that it would be unreasonable for him to remain in the marriage, on 7 November 2024 (“Interim Judgment”). This was after several rounds of mediation and counselling.

There were separate MSS proceedings for interim maintenance where a consent order was entered into by Parties on 21 October 2025 that there would be no interim spousal maintenance for the Wife, but that the Husband would pay S$260 per month per child for a total of S$520 on 22nd of every month from 22 October 2025 with further terms for direct payments to be made by the Husband.

Additionally, Parties had been involved in multiple proceedings in relation to personal protection orders (“PPOs”):

(a) 1st PPO Proceedings in 2023, whereby after a trial of the matter, a PPO was granted to the Husband against the Wife with counselling also ordered;

(b) 2nd PPO Proceedings in early 2025, had been applied for by the Husband on behalf of the Children against Wife, but was dismissed after trial on 28 May 2025;

(c) 3rd PPO Proceedings in early 2025, had been applied for by the Wife on behalf of Children against Husband shortly after the 2nd PPO Proceedings had been filed and was also dismissed after trial on 28 May 2025;

(d) 4th PPO Proceedings commenced subsequently in April 2025 by the Wife against the Husband for herself was dismissed after trial on 5 August 2025.

The Husband had filed his Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AOM”) on 4 December 2024 and the Wife filed her AOM on 5 December 2024. Parties filed multiple summons applications which were resolved before the ancillary matters hearing:

(a) the Wife applied for discovery in FC/SUM 364/2025 (“SUM 364”) on 19 February 2025, where orders were made for disclosure by the Husband on 11 April 2025 with costs payable by the Husband (“Disclosure ORC”);

(b) the Husband also filed a summons for discovery in FC/SUM 890/2025 (“SUM 890”) on 7 May 2025, where no order as made on 5 out of the 6 requested disclosure, but an order was made on 28 May 2025, for the Wife to disclose bank accounts in China for a period of three (3) months around the time of the Interim Judgment;

(c) also on 7 May 2025, the Wife filed a summons for striking out portions of the Husband’s AOM in FC/SUM 1002/2025 (“SUM 1002”), which the Husband subsequently agreed to remove portions of his AOM and an order was granted in terms on 18 June 2025;

(d) the Husband filed a summons for extension of time for the appeal of the decision in SUM 364 in FC/SUM 1211/2025 (“SUM 1211”) on 30 May 2025, which was dismissed on 31 July 2026 after a substantive contested hearing where parties were both in person by then; and

(e) the Husband applied for discovery by way of summons in FC/SUM 1571/2025 (“SUM 1571”) which was heard on 18 August 2025 where two (2) of the five categories (5) of documents were allowed, with no order as to costs.

The Wife further filed a summons application for “full asset disclosure” in FC/SUM 1825/2025 (“SUM 1825”) on 4 August 2025. SUM 1825 was heard together with the Ancillary Matters. SUM 1825 made various requests for:

(a) full asset disclosure of all financial, investment and cryptocurrency assets and documents;

(b) payment of Costs of S$1,000 previously ordered on 11 April 2024 be paid;

(c) S$2,000 compensation for delays, distress and misconduct by the Husband; and

(d) that further orders necessary to penalize and restrain his ongoing noncompliance, including adverse inference, fines and contempt proceedings.

The Wife filed her 2nd Ancillary Matters Affidavit on 7 October 2026 and the Husband filed his 2nd Ancillary Matters Affidavit on 10 October 2026.

At the last case conference, before the Ancillary Matters hearing, Parties had been directed to file and exchange Ancillary Matters Fact and Position Sheet (“AMFPS”) by way of email by 14 November 2025 for a physical hearing in Chambers before me. No Written Submissions had been directed as the Parties were in person. The Husband proceeded to file his AMFPS on 4 November 2025 and the Wife filed her AMFPS on 11 November 2025.

The Ancillary Matters were first heard by me in Chambers for a half-day on 28 November 2025, where preliminary issues were discussed and the Wife raised a list of 20 items, which she alleged that the Husband had failed to disclose, even though a fair number of them had been ordered to be disclosed in Disclosure ORC. Parties were directed file written submissions by 2 January 2026 to account for the differences in their respective AMFPS and to provided updated information of the resale prices of the Matrimonial Home.

On 23 December 2025, the Wife filed an 18-paged Written Submissions and then the Husband filed his 36-paged Written Submissions later that day.

The matter was thus further heard for a full day hearing on 9 January 2026 on the issues of disclosure and other matters concerning division of matrimonial assets but were unable to complete the hearing of all arguments. The were also some arguments raised by the Husband in relation to contractual claims and alleged forged agreements, which parties were informed were outside the scope of matrimonial proceedings and needed to be pursued in separate civil proceedings in the proper forum. I directed Parties to address their care plans for the Children in the event that they were granted care and control of the Children and what were their proposals on access. Parties were further directed to address how they should be considered as the primary caregiver of the children to be granted sole care and control. Additionally, parties were directed to make disclosure of certain documents that both sides were in agreement to disclose. These were directed to be submitted by 20 January 2026. The Wife filed her submissions on 19 January 2025, whereas the Husband filed one set of submissions on 23 January and another set on 27 January 2026.

Parties were further heard for a half-day on 6 February 2026, where arguments were heard on the issues relating to the Children as well as Children and Spousal Maintenance. In this hearing, the Wife stated that she was not seeking spousal maintenance, so long as the Husband fulfills his duties to the Children and left the issue in the hands of the Court to decide. A decision hearing was initially fixed on 20 March 2026, but had to be adjourned to 22 April 2026, in light of a serious family medical emergency that I had to attend to.

At the hearing on 22 April 2026, the Parties were informed that while I had reached a decision in relation to the Children issues and maintenance, certain directions previously provided to parties for matters relating to division of matrimonial assets to be addressed had not been complied with. This included issues relating to a Chinese property and a further property purchased in Hubei, China for the Husband’s parents. Parties were directed to file their 1st affidavit on this by 30 April 2026 and then for their reply affidavits by 7 May 2026. Parties were allowed to exchange these affidavits by email first before filing them. On 6 May 2026, the Husband filed one (1) document containing two (2) affidavits and the Wife filed three (3) affidavits. After hearing some preliminary arguments, decision was delivered with brief reasons provided.

The orders made were as follows:

(a) Parties were granted joint custody of the two (2) Children,

(b) The Wife was granted sole care and control of the Children;

(c) The Husband was granted reasonable access as follows:

(i) During school term,

(A) Weekends: Friday 8.30 pm to Sunday 12 noon of unsupervised overnight access;

(B) The Husband was also granted alternating public holiday access from 9 am to 9 pm, beginning with Labour Day, 1 May 2025. Such Public Holiday access was to supersede normal weekly school term access. For the avoidance of doubt, when the holiday falls on a weekend, the relevant day for access will be the day off given in lieu of the public or school holiday. This includes, but is not limited to, Children’s Day, Youth day, Teacher’s day, PSLE Marking Day. Parties were at liberty to agree in writing on a trade of days beforehand, but in the event that the Husband fails to exercise his access, there would be no make-up access;

(ii) During the School Vacations, for the 1-week March/September school vacations (beginning from the weekend before till the weekend after just before school starts), the Wife would have unsupervised overnight access on Saturday at 8 am to Tuesday 8 pm. During the School Vacations, for the June and November/December school vacations as follows:

(iii) Parties were to agree on such arrangements, taking the Children’s schedule into consideration. In the event that agreement is not forthcoming, the default arrangement is that in odd years, the Wife was to have the 1st half of the school vacation and in the even years, the Wife was to have the 2nd half of the school vacations.

(iv) Such school vacation access shall supersede normal school-term access.

(v) Each Party was at liberty to travel with the children during their share of the school vacation. The Party seeking to take the Children overseas must provide the other with advanced notice and a detailed itinerary at least 2 weeks (i.e. 14 days) before the date of departure from Singapore. Such notice shall be sufficient notification and shall not require the consent of the other party for such intended travel.

(vi) Parties were to discuss the arrangements with the other parent before the overseas trip. This shall supersede other forms of access save that the other parent (i.e. the parent not travelling with the Children) shall be entitled to a telephone/video call for no longer than 15 minutes each day. For the purposes of overseas travel, the Wife was to provide the Children's passports to the Husband within 48 hours of the Defendant's request for this. The Husband was to return the Children's passports to the Wife within 48 hours of having received the passports or within 48 hours from returning to Singapore after any overseas travel with the Children.

(vii) Should the Children be travelling overseas with one parent, the other parent, would be at liberty to attend at the public area outside the airport or port of departure. Parties were to correspond and agree on an arrangement.

(viii) Parties were at liberty to agree to any alternate or supplementary access in writing;

(ix) In the event that either or both of the Children or the Husband was unable to attend access for valid reasons, the Wife or the Husband (as the case may be) shall inform the other party of this within 24 hours prior notice before the intended access session. If there are urgent and unforeseen reasons, Parties shall inform the other at least 1 hour before intended access.

(x) In the event that either or both the Children are unable to attend access for valid reasons, makeup access was to be arranged between the Parties within 2 weeks of the missed access unless expressly agreed in writing between parties.

(xi) While the Children are spending time with other party, the other is entitled to a telephone/video call for no longer than 15 minutes each day.

(xii) In the event that either or both of the Children is/are ill and have been brought to see the doctor or hospitalized, the parent, or their representatives, who have brought the children for such medical intervention shall inform the other parent within 2 hours of the medical intervention by way of text message. The parent shall inform the other parent of the relevant information including but not limited to any diagnosis, prognosis, medication prescribed or MC provided when available.

(xiii) The Husband shall handover the Children’s Passports to the Wife within seven (7) days of this order.

(d) Division of the matrimonial assets

(i) The Matrimonial Home was to be sold in the open market, by way of joint conduct of sale. The sale proceeds shall be distributed as follows:

(A) the reimbursement of the sums from the Wife’s and Husband’s Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account that had been used towards the acquisition of the Matrimonial Home and the interest accrued to the Husband’s CPF account;

(B) the outstanding mortgage for the Matrimonial Home;

(C) costs and expenses of the sale of the Matrimonial Home, including any conveyancing, stamp fees, registration, administrative or legal fees (including any disbursements or other costs);

(D) the equivalent of the nett of the sale proceeds after deducting (c) above (the “Nett Sale Proceeds”), shall be apportioned between parties as follows:-

(I) 68% to the Wife taking into account the reimbursement in (A);

(II) 32% to the Husband taking into account the reimbursement in (A); and

(E) In the event that there is insufficient cash balance to satisfy the Husband’s or the Wife’s shares of the Nett Sale Proceeds, the CPF Board shall from the monies standing in the Husband’s CPF account (Ordinary and/or Special, if allowed) as of the date of this Order, transfer the relevant sum from his or CPF account to the Wife’s CPF Account (Ordinary and/or Special if allowed) or vice versa, as the case maybe;

(F) In the event that a Party’s share is insufficient to fully refund his or her CPF monies paid towards the Matrimonial Home with interest accrued, there will be no requirement to pay the shortfall.

(ii) Parties shall be at liberty extend the time for transfer or sale by agreement in writing.

(iii) The orders made herein are subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 36) (the “CPF Act”) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The CPF Board shall give effect to the terms of this order in accordance with the provisions of the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder.

(iv) The Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Family Justice Courts under Section 31 of the Family Justice Act (Act 27 of 2014) is empowered to execute, sign, or indorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this order on behalf of either party should either Party fail to do so within 7 days of a written request being made to the other party.

(v) Other than provided above, by consent, each party is to retain all other assets in their respective names and shall have no future claims to them.

(e) For the Maintenance of the Children, the Husband shall pay monthly maintenance of S$1,200 for each child, i.e. the Daughter and the Son, totalling S$2,400 into the Wife’s bank account by way of PayNow to the Wife’s mobile number on or before the 22nd day of every month, with effect from the date of the Order.

(f) No maintenance for the Wife or the Husband.

(g) No order as to costs; and

(h) Liberty to Apply.

Neither the Wife nor the Husband applied to extract this Ancillary Matters Order, even though a draft copy had been provided to parties in Chambers with some corrections made and countersigned by me.

It bears noting that the Wife had a significant emotional response to the delivery of the decision and spent about half an hour crying and ranting about certain matters she claimed had not been taken into consideration for adverse inference. Much time was spent in trying to explain matters to the Wife and to calm her down. This was not helped by the Wife’s belief that her case was strong that she expected the Court to grant her the whole of the Matrimonial Home and was thus shocked by the outcome. While I had sympathies for her worries about providing a home for her Children, I found the decision to be a fair position between parties’ competing claims and the needs of the Children. Parties were informed that they were at liberty to file for an appeal if they disagreed with my decision.

Despite the Wife’s outburst at the decision hearing, she filed no appeal. The Husband, however, being dissatisfied with my decisions filed an appeal in HCF/DCA 38/2026 on 22 May 2026 and appointed new legal representation for the appeal. In the circumstances, I provide my reasoning for my decision below.

The parties’ cases & issues to be determined

The outstanding Ancillary Matters in this case were:

(a) Division of Matrimonial Assets, where there were specific assets disputed and allegations of a failure to provide full and frank disclosure for which an adverse inference was asked to be drawn, the exclusion of premarital assets and clawback for dissipation (claimed by the Wife) and issues of accounting for rent-free occupation of Matrimonial Home (claimed by the Husband);

(b) Spousal Maintenance for the Wife, which was initially being claimed by the Wife, but was subsequently dropped;

(c) Children Maintenance;

(d) Custody of the Children, where each Party had initially sought sole custody, and further orders including who was to hold on to the Children’s passports;

(e) Care and Control of the Children, where each Party was also seeking sole care and control of the Children;

(f) Access; and

(g) Costs.

General Principles & Agreements in relation to Division of Matrimonial Assets

Sections 112(1) and (2) of the Women’s Charter 1961 provide as follows:

In this case, Parties agreed that the ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ v ANK”) Structured Approach for dual income marriages was to be adopted in relation to the division of matrimonial assets. The Structured Approach as set out by the Court of Appeal in ANJ v ANK involves the Court first arriving at “a ratio that represents each party’s direct financial contributions relative to that of the other party, having regard to the amount of financial contribution each party has made towards the acquisition or improvement of the matrimonial assets” (see ANJ v ANK at [22]. Secondly, the Court would consider parties’ indirect contributions and ascribe a second ratio which represents the contributions of each party to the family’s wellbeing relative to the other party. Thirdly, the Court derives an average percentage contribution for each party, at which point further adjustments may be made to account for other considerations (see ANJ v ANK at [27]).

Parties left it up to the Court to adopt either the global or classification methodology (see NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743 (“NK v NL”)). Given that there were no special reasons to classify some assets into special classes, I applied the global methodology. There was also no arguments made on the applicable operative dates for determining the pool of matrimonial assets and their value (see BPC v BPB and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 608 (“BPC v BPB”) at [25] and USA v USB [2019] SGHC 5 (“USA v USB”) at [32] to [35]). In the circumstances, the norm dates of interim judgment for the determination of pool and ancillary matters hearing for the valuation of matrimonial assets (save for monetary assets which are determined as of interim judgment), was adopted.

With regard to the calculation of direction financial contributions to the Matrimonial Home, Parties took no view as to whether the raw values of the monies paid or extrapolated values of the monies paid to the current market value should be used. In light of this, I used the extrapolated values for a better representation of the current value of the Matrimonial Home.

With regard to weightage of the direct financial contributions relative to the indirect contributions, the Wife claimed that indirect contributions should be weighted higher at 60%, whereas the Husband took the position that the norm of equal weightage should be applied. However, the Wife presented no case law to support her position. Usually, in cases where it was a short childless marriage there could be an argument that the weightage for direct financial contributions to be higher. However, placing a higher weightage on the indirect contributions to the family, would require some very exceptional reasons. As the Wife provided no such reasons to warrant weighting indirect contributions higher than direct financial contributions, I weighted both ratios equally.

Preliminary Issue: alleged signed agreements for personal loans

As briefly mentioned earlier, there had been allegations of signed agreements for a personal loan between the Wife and her parents and the Husband. The Wife claimed that such documents were fabricated and that she had never signed any such documents. In this regard, she had made a police report on this alleged forgery. Given that these were contractual claims, such alleged agreements, even if they were authentic, were matters that needed to be pursued separately in civil court proceedings. The agreements related to purported loans by the Husband to the Wife and her family members, who were not party to these proceedings. These purported loans were also not alleged to be monies used for the benefit of the family to be taken into account for. This issue was identified to Parties in the hearing on 9 January 2026 and not pursued further after that.

Issue 1: Disputed Assets

The Wife alleged that there were assets which had not been disclosed and that there were certain properties in China and other assets that needed to be accounted for that the Husband disputed. He alleged that he had provided what he could for disclosure and that he had certain limitations as he had renounced his Chinese citizenship for Singapore Citizenship and thus could not obtain certain documentation. He also claimed that the Wife’s Chinese property should be a matrimonial asset, and she instead argued that it was a premarital asset and should be excluded. In the following section, I deal with the law on adverse inference and these further disputed assets.

Law on the drawing of Adverse Inference

The law on adverse inference was recently clarified UZN v UZM. The Court of Appeal provided a succinct summary on the legal principles on the drawing of an adverse inference in Ancillary Maters proceedings at [16] to [21] of UZN v UZM [2020] SGCA 109 as follows:

The Court of Appeal further clarified when it would be appropriate for the courts to adopt the quantification or the uplift approach to give effect to the adverse inference at [27] to [35]:

In this case, the Wife alleged that the Husband had failed to disclose significant assets, some of which had been previously ordered to be disclosed. On this basis, the Wife was seeking for an adverse inference to be drawn.

Disputed Asset: List of 20 matrimonial assets purportedly held by the Defendant

It was in the 1st hearing of the matter that I had gone through with parties their AMFPS and worked out with parties that there were 20 categories of items which the Wife had alleged that the Husband did not make full and frank disclosure on, which are addressed below.

1. Husband’s 1st Bank of Shanghai Account

For this, the Husband claimed that this account was the same as the Alipay account (which is addressed below), which was another asset in dispute, whereas the Wife maintained that they should be two (2) separate accounts. Both of which had not been properly disclosed. In this regard, given the explanations provided, I was willing to accept the Husband’s explanation that the Alipay Account was indeed linked to this 1st Bank of Shanghai Account.

The documentation for this and the Alipay account, the Husband claimed that he had written to the bank in China and they had failed to respond. Hence, he claimed that he had called them up and was informed that the bank balance was only RMB 4,400 (which is approximately S$835). However, the Husband could provide no documentation to verify this or to confirm the call he made with the bank to obtain such information or that they had failed to respond to his written requests. Both the Wife and the Husband listed this asset in their respective AMFPS as an asset belonging to the Husband, but it was unclear what sums were in this bank account, given the lack of documentation. In any event, it was the Husband’s duty to provide documentation on this, which he failed to do so.

2. Husband’s ICBC Account

The Husband claimed that this ICBC bank account was no longer in existence since 2022, before he moved back from China to Singapore in 2023 to 2024. In any event, the Husband claimed that there had been a low monetary amount in this account before it was closed. However, the wife provided documentation to show that there was a transaction of approximately S$21,000 paid through Alipay from a debit card that this ICBC bank account was associated with. Additionally, the Wife had obtained an order for disclosure in Disclosure ORC was made ordering disclosure of this bank account. Notwithstanding this, the Husband had not even provided any correspondence with ICBC bank on this to confirm that the bank account was closed as he had alleged. In this regard, this would be a material non-disclosure by the Husband.

3. Husband’s Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Account

For the Husband’s Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Account, the disclosure of documents relating to this had also been specifically ordered in Disclosure ORC under item 11(xiv) of the table for disclosure. Hence, there was non-compliance with this order, and consequentially this was a further material non-disclosure by the Husband.

4. Husband’s 2nd Bank of Shanghai Account

The disclosure of the Husband’s 2nd Bank of Shanghai Account had been ordered in Disclosure ORC as item 11(ix) of the disclosure table. This order was made even after some voluntary disclosure made by the Husband on 12 March 2025, which was deemed insufficient. However, on further examination of the provided documents, the account number listed for this account appeared to be a bank card number, which could be tied to the 1st Bank of Shanghai Account. If this was the case, this should have been properly explained by the Husband in affidavit, but this was not properly addressed.

5. Husband’s China Citic Bank Account

Similar to the prior item, for the Husband’s China Citic Bank Account, this appeared to also relate to a bank card, even though an order was made for disclosure as item 11(xi) of the disclosure table in Disclosure ORC. In any event, if this was indeed a bank card instead of a bank account, it would have been linked to a bank account, which was not disclosed, and the Husband also provided no explanations on this in affidavit. This was a further material non-disclosure by the Husband.

6. Husband’s Hu Bei Rural Credit Cooperatives Account

Disclosure was ordered under item 11(xiii) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC for the Husband’s Hu Bei Rural Credit Cooperatives Account, but apart from a bare denial, the Husband provided no documentation to support his position. On the other hand, the Plaintiff had exhibited a picture of a card for this account under the Husband’s name. This was yet a further material non-disclosure by the Husband.

7. Husband’s SPD Bank Shanghai Account

The Husband’s SPD Bank Shanghai Account was ordered to be disclosed as item 11 (xiv) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC. In this regard, the Husband had relied on a general statement in his disclosure compliance affidavit that he did not have this account. However, the Wife was able to provide evidence of Alipay transactions on this purported account in her Affidavit filed on 10 October 2025 Affidavit at page 43 and there was evidence of there being an SPD Bank Debit card in the Husband’s name. I found the bare denial to be insufficient to discharge the Husband’s burden of providing documentation in the face of the evidence that the Wife had presented to show the existence of this account.

8. Husband’s Bank of China Account

Disclosure was ordered for the Husband’s Bank of China Account under item 11 (xv) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC. However, no documentation had been provided. The Husband merely relied on the general statement that he did not have this account. However, the Wife had exhibited a card under the Husband’s name for this. Similar to the previous item, I found the bare denial to be insufficient to discharge the Husband’s burden of providing documentation in the face of the evidence that the Wife had presented to show the existence of this account.

9. Husband’s ABOCN (Xiamen) Account

Disclosure was also ordered for the Husband’s ABOCN (Xiamen) Account under item 11 (xvii) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC. In this regard, the Husband merely relied on his general statement that he did not have this account. However, the Wife had exhibited a card under the Husband’s name for this. Hence, I found this bare denial to be insufficient to discharge the Husband’s burden of providing documentation in the face of the evidence that the Wife had presented to show the existence of this account.

10. Husband’s Alipay Account

There was an order for the disclosure of the Husband’s Alipay account under item 11 (xi) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC. As addressed above, I accepted that the Alipay account was linked to Husband’s mobile number. which the Husband alleged to be linked to the 1st Bank of Shanghai Account, where reference was made to this in hist AOM. However, other than the Husband’s written statement in affidavit, there was no contemporaneous documentation to prove this. Given the failure to comply with Disclosure ORC, I found this to be another instance of the Husband’s material non-disclosure.

11. Husband’s China Merchants Securities Account

The Husband was ordered to disclose this under item 11 (xx) of the disclosure table in Disclosure ORC. However, for this, the Wife had relied on a photograph of an electronically written note that was purportedly on the Husband’s handphone (see page 19 of the Wife’s affidavit dated 6 October 2025). The Husband denied that he had authored this handphone note. Hence, as opposed to the other alleged accounts, the Wife’s evidence on this was less strong. In any event, the Husband merely had a bare assertion that he did not have this account.

12. Husband’s Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Account

Whilst this had been identified as a separate disputed item in the 1st hearing of the matter, upon examination, this appeared to be the same ICBC Account that had been previously dealt with.

13. Husband’s Tian Tian Fund

The Wife alleged that the Husband had a Tian Tian Fund, but on further examination, it appeared that the account number for this was merely the Husband’s handphone number which was attached to his Alipay account. Hence, this was not a separate disputed asset.

14. Husband’s East Money Securities Account

Similar to the Husband’s China Merchants Securities Account, the Wife had relied on a photograph of an electronically written note that was purportedly on the Husband’s handphone (see page 19 of the Wife’s affidavit dated 6 October 2025), which was denied by the Husband. The Wife’s evidence on this was less strong. In any event, the Husband merely had a bare assertion that he did not have this account.

15. Husband’s Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Account

Similar to the earlier item, whilst this had been identified as a separate disputed item in the 1st hearing of the matter, upon examination, this appeared to be the same ICBC Account that had been previously dealt with.

16. Husband’s China merchant bank securities Niu card account for shares

Likewise, upon examination, this item was deemed to be the same as the Husband’s China Merchants Securities Account, which was addressed above.

17. Husband’s Cryptocurrency Huobi

The Husband was ordered to disclose his cryptocurrency Huobi account under item 11 (xiv) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC. In response, the Husband merely replied that he does not have any cryptocurrency assets. In this regard, I do have to note that the only evidence that the Wife had on the existence of this account was once again the Husband’s purported handphone note, as such her evidence in this regard was not particularly strong.

18. Husband’s Ping Ann Securities for shares

Similarly, the Husband was ordered to disclose his cryptocurrency Huobi account under item 11 (xviii) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC. In response, the Husband merely replied that he does not have this asset. In this regard, the Wife could only rely on the Husband’s purported handphone note, as such her evidence in this regard was also not particularly strong.

19. Husband’s Tiger Brokers Account

The Husband was ordered to disclose his cryptocurrency Huobi account under item 11 (xxi) of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC. In response, the Husband merely replied that he does not have this asset. However, similar to the last few times, the Wife could only rely on the Husband’s purported handphone note, as such, her evidence in this regard likewise not particularly strong.

20. Husband’s 50 BTC

The Husband’s 50 BTC (bitcoins) were ordered to be disclosed under the item 9 of the disclosure table of Disclosure ORC and was directed to be provided for the period of February 2023 to November 2024. However, the Wife only had an audio recording of the Husband purportedly saying that he had such bitcoin without any contemporaneous documentation. Hence, this was not the strongest evidence to prove that there were such bitcoin that the Husband had that he did not disclose.

Overall

Overall, taking all of this into consideration, given the various bank cards that the Wife was able to exhibit and the transactions she was able to show that appear to be from the Husband’s various accounts, I found that the Wife had made out a case that there was material non-disclosure of documents which should be in the Husband’s possession, custody or power to produce, which he failed to do so. It was, however, unclear how significant such assets were and there was no quantifiable value for such assets.

Hence, I drew an adverse inference against the Husband in relation to his material non-disclosure and granted an uplift of 10%.

Alleged Premarital asset of the Wife’s China Property

The Wife had initially not disclosed this asset specifically but did make brief mention of it in her AOM. The Wife believed that because it was purchased in her name prior to the marriage, that this did not need to be specifically disclosed. In any event, this was disclosed by the Wife subsequently, after I had explained the need for it to be disclosed, so that the Court can make a determination on whether it was or was not a premarital asset.

In the High Court case of TXW v TXX [2017] 4 SLR 799; [2017] SGHCF 3 at [22] to [23], JC Debbie Ong (as Her Honour was then), held that the payment of mortgage during the course of the marriage would count towards a portion of the premarital asset being acquired after parties were married, thus that portion would be a matrimonial asset. Such payments made after the marriage would be credited to the original owning spouse that should be factored into the ANJ v ANK structured approach.

In this case, the Wife’s position was that this property was purchased on 28 March 2013, which was a couple of months before parties married on 15 July 2013. Hence, I found that there were 4 months of payment made before the marriage, but there was thereafter further acquisition of this Chinese property during the course of the marriage.

The Wife alleged that RMB 11,000 was paid for the mortgage loan in the 1st six (6) months after the initial purchase and that the rest was paid off over nine (9) subsequent years and then sold off in 2022.

The Wife claimed that all funds for this came from her parents. On the flip side, the Husband claimed that the funds came from him as a form of dowry or “bride-price” he paid to her parents. However, neither side had any evidence to corroborate this with documentary evidence. If the monies had been paid to the Wife’s parents as a form of dowry before the marriage, this would be a gift made to the Wife’s parents before marriage, what they do with it is wholly up to them. If they had used such monies for the payment of the mortgage for a property in the Wife’s name, that would then be a gift from them to the Wife.

Given the absence of documentary evidence to provide what payments had been made and how much was paid before the marriage, I was left with no other choice but to take a practical approach that given that the property was in the name of the Wife’s name, that the direct financial contributions for this would be attributed to her. In this regard, without any clarity on whether the payments were frontloaded or backloaded, I could only assume that the payments were of regular amounts during the term of the mortgage and accounted for this by the amount of time spent paying the mortgage. In this case, there were four (4) months of payment before the marriage. Overall, the mortgage was paid for a period of 113 months. Hence, after the marriage, there were 109 months of payments made by the Wife. In the circumstances, I applied a ratio of 109/113 (i.e. 96.46%) of this Chinese property being art of the matrimonial assets.

Given the sale proceeds of RMB 430,000, at a rate of 1SGD: 0/19 RMB, the value of the Chinese Property in SGD was S$81,700. Therefore, the portion of this property which was determined to be a matrimonial asset was S$78,807.82.

Disputed Asset: Hubei Property purchase for the Husband’s Father

The Wife alleged that there was a property that the Husband had purchased for his family in Hubei, China, which should be added back into the matrimonial pool. Even though this was not particularly clarified by the Wife, this was on the assumption that it would be clawbacks under the TNL Dicta for dissipation of matrimonial assets when the divorce was imminent.

In this regard, in UZN v UZM [2020] SGCA 109, Justice Debbie Ong clarified on the TNL dicta at [62] to [68].

In this case, the Hubei Property was purchased by the Husband in 2020. At that point in time, it was neither Parties’ case that the divorce was imminent. As such, there could be no clawback for the purported dissipation of matrimonial assets in this regard. In the course of arguments, there was a question whether there was consent or knowledge by the Wife, but in any event, before the breakdown of the marriage, the Wife had visited this property twice and was aware that the Husband had paid for it. Whilst she was upset over this, this was not the even that led to the breakdown of the marriage.

Whilst I could not account for this property as a matrimonial asset or apply any clawback of monies, I could give credit to the Wife in relation to this in relation to indirect contributions as matrimonial assets, which would have been otherwise available for her immediate family, had been utilized for the care of the Husband’s elderly parents.

Disputed Asset: Purported S$90,000 from the sale of warehouse goods

The Wife argued that goods had been left by the Husband when he returned to China in mid to late 2017, and the warehouse lease was due to expire, hence, she took steps to sell off the goods on-site purportedly at the warehouse and received S$90,000 in cash. However, no formal receipts had been retained. The Wife claimed this S$90,000 was handed over to the Husband in cash when he returned back to Singapore. Hence, there were no bank records of this. The Wife has relied on an affidavit by a friend to confirm that she had done such acts to sell off the goods on behalf of the Husband.

Hence, the Wife was seeking that this S$90,000 of the purported income generated be considered for her contributions to both the direct financial and indirect contributions to the family.

In this case, even with the corroboration by the Wife’s friend under affidavit, at best, this only when towards evidence that there were certain monetary transactions made for the payment of monies from the Wife to the Husband for the sale of his good. However, there is no concrete evidence as to the quantum of said sum. Additionally, there was some dispute as to whether the sum was S$90,000 or S$70,000. In any event, for any such sum to be considered for direct financial contributions, it would need to attach to a particular asset and that there would need to be evidence of this. Given the lack of evidence, at best, this would be considered as the Wife’s indirect contributions to the family to help the Husband sell off goods.

Disputed Asset: BitWise VCC and 32% Share of HK Mathison

The Husband had declared that he had 32% share stake in a company called Hong Kong Mathison, where he obtained a loan of S$250,000 using the Matrimonial Home as collateral and for the sale proceeds of his car of S$75,000 and some further monies, he put in S$330,000 to acquire the shares. Despite the amounts of money put into the acquisition of such shares, he claimed that they were only worth S$40,000. There was no documentation to verify that this was the actual market value of the shares. The Husband claimed that he had an offer from a friend to buy over these shares at S$40,000 and as such, he used that as the value of the shares. I was unconvinced by the Husband’s arguments in this regard.

Given the lack of evidence of the actual value of said shares, I had to take into account the monies that were put in for acquisition of said shares to represent their value, being S$330,000.

Similarly for the Husband’s asset of Bitwise VCC, He had obtained a loan of USD 100,000 from the company he worked for acquisition of gold assets and then further sold off the gold assets for a sum of S$136,000 to acquire this. After Interim Judgment, he independently sold this off for a sum of S$10,000, which he had determined. There was no documentation on what the actual value of the asset was. However, the sum that he sold it off at was far lower than the sums of money he put into the acquisition.

Given the lack of evidence of the actual value of Bitwise VCC, I had to take into account the monies that were put in for its acquisition to represent their value, being S$136,000.

Alleged Marital Agreement

The Husband alleged that there was a postnuptial agreement dated 15 October 2021, however, the Wife denied this and claimed that the document was forged. There were police investigations on this after the Wife made a police report, but the police decided not to pursue the matter.

In comparing the signature on the alleged agreement and the signatures on the affidavits of the Wife, they appeared to be significantly different and did not match, However, neither side provided any expert opinion on this. With the lack of certainty on the reliability of the document, I could not make a finding that there was a postnuptial agreement and for the terms of this alleged agreement to be enforced. This was particularly so, as the terms were skewed heavily in favour of the Husband. And given the further issues with the positions taken by the Husband, there was a question as to his credibility.

Issue 2: Rent-Free Occupation

In the case of XHG v XHH [2025] 2 SLR 501; [2025] SGHC(A) 24, the Court of Appeal at [95] to [106] considered the husband’s appeal that the judge at first instance should have adjusted his share to account for rent-free occupation by the wife. The Court of Appeal held that the factor of one spouse’s exclusive rent-free occupation of a matrimonial home in s 112(2)(f) of the Women’s Charter 1961 was only one of eight (8) factors the court should have regard to in the exercise of its powers in dividing matrimonial assets. On the facts of that case, there was no basis to shift the average ratio of division in the husband’s favour to account for that factor as:

(a) First, the moneys expended by the husband on alternative accommodation were not an appropriate proxy for the husband’s requested uplift in the ratio, as s 112(2)(f) was focused on the benefit enjoyed by the occupying spouse. The sums that the husband spent on hotel accommodation, purchases of furnishings, and furniture could not be said to reflect, for example, the market value of what the wife gained by her sole occupation of the matrimonial home;

(b) Second, the factor in s 112(2)(f) had to be considered in the balance with the other factors, including that in s 112(2)(c) of the Women’s Charter 1931 on the needs of the children of the marriage. After it became impractical for the parties to live together, it was reasonable for the wife to remain in the matrimonial home with the children as their primary caregiver. The husband was under a duty to provide for the Children’s reasonable needs, which would have included their expenses for alternative accommodation if they left the matrimonial home with the wife.

Hence, considering all the relevant circumstances and bearing in mind that the power to divide assets was exercised in broad strokes based on what was just and equitable, the Court of Appeal found that there was no reason to disturb the ratio of division reached by the Judge.

In this case, the Husband sought to claim adjustment for the Wife’s rent-free occupation of the Matrimonial Home after he had left. In this regard, while the Husband resided at the residential property where the company he worked for had used for its place of business, he purported that there was a deduction of his salary from the company to pay for his lodging there. In this case, the Husband was the only staff at this location and was the one managing the business and there was no way to corroborate this as a company practice. There was no documentation provided to support his claim.

More importantly, it is noted that the Wife had resided at the Matrimonial Home with the Children. Hence, it cannot be said that she had exclusive possession of the property to the exclusion of the Husband, when the property was also used for the benefit of providing a shelter for the Children. Thus, in accordance with case law, this does not count toward rent-free occupation.

However, the Husband had accounted for loans that he took out from his company to account for his accommodations and that was taken into consideration in the next section.

Issue 3: Liabilities

With regard to liabilities, the Husband had presented a list of items that he wanted to be taken into consideration. In this list, he had listed the mortgage as a loan to be taken into consideration. However, as this would be dealt with separately in relation to the value of the Matrimonial Home, this was not accounted for separately.

With regard to the other liabilities, as he had taken out loans for the acquisition of the Hong Kong Mathison shares, which he is still paying off and had further evidence of loans taken to cover his and the Children’s expenses as well as a loan for his accommodation, I was willing to take these into consideration to reduce the Husband’s direct financial contributions to account for this/ The liabilities accepted are as follows:

Issue 4: Matrimonial Home

I will next deal with the issues of the value of the Matrimonial Home and Parties direct financial contributions towards it.

Value of the Matrimonial Home

With regard to the open market value of the Matrimonial Home, in the 1st hearing on 28 November 2025, the Wife took the position that it should be valued at S$598,000 and the Husband’s position was that it was valued at S$570,000. The difference between their positions is only S$28,000. I allowed parties to review the updated resale prices after this 1st hearing and to provide updated values for the Matrimonial Home for the next hearing.

In the 2nd Hearing on 9 January 2026, the Wife insisted that the last resale transaction for a unit in the same block of similar levels, with floor area of 110 sqm was for a sale in February 2025 for S$598,000 and provided supporting documentation on that. The wife believed that the Matrimonial Home should be valued at this sum. The Husband updated his position by relying on a sale of a unit in a nearby block at a similar level in August 2025 with 110 sqm size was S$565,000. However, the Husband proposed taking an average of the sums as the market value of the Matrimonial Home. Given that there was nothing particularly special between the different blocks, I took an intermediate position of S$580,000 to represent the market value of the Matrimonial Home.

The outstanding mortgage for the Matrimonial Home was stated by the Wife to be S$176,817 as of 4 December 2024, whereas, the Husband had stated the sum to be S$177,360 as at 30 October 2024. In the hearing, Parties agreed to use the value as of 4 December 2024.

Hence, the net market value of Matrimonial Home was S$403,183 (i.e. S$580,000 – S$176,817).

Direct Financial Contributions to the Matrimonial Flat

For direct financial contributions, both parties are in agreement on the principal CPF sums paid by each of them, being that it was solely contributed by the Husband. They were however in dispute over the cash paid towards the Matrimonial Home.

For the Wife’s alleged cash payment of S$90,000 purportedly from her sale of the Husband’s goods leftover in the warehouse, which was addressed earlier, there is no evidence of this actual contribution to the acquisition of the Matrimonial Home. The Wife only had a sworn statement by her friend that she had passed some monies from the sale of goods to the Husband. There was no evidence to show that any such monies had been applied to pay off the mortgage form the Matrimonial Home. In the circumstances, I did not take this into account.

Similarly for the Husband claimed that he made a cash payment of S$75,696 towards purchase price. However, no documentation was provided on this. Neither did the Husband provide any documentation on the alleged S$20,000 that he spent for the renovations of the Matrimonial Home or for S$70,000 he purportedly got for refinancing with UOB. As such, I did not factor in such bare assertions.

Hence, I could only take into account the documented CPF payments towards the direct financial contributions to the Matrimonial Home, and extrapolating that to the current net market value of the Matrimonial Home, this value was attributed to the Husband:

Issue 5: Direct Financial Contributions For all Matrimonial Assets

On the basis of valuation of monetary assets as of Interim Judgment and non-monetary assets as of Ancillary Matters, the assets are collated as such (for a total asset pool of S$1,003,368.06):

Issue 6: Indirect Financial Contributions

In relation to indirect contributions to the family, I took into account that the Wife appeared to be the primary caregiver of the Children, particularly as the Father was staying separately from the Children. I also had to take into account that the Husband’s work also often took him overseas for extended periods of time, leaving the care mostly to the Wife.

As stated earlier, I also took into account that there would have been matrimonial funds that were used for the purchase of a property in Hubei, China for the Husband’s parents and that the Wife expended efforts in selling off goods left behind by the Husband.

On the Husband’s side, he had been paying for household expenses, and he had the documented incident of the PPO where the Wife had held a knife against him.

Overall, both parties did contribute significantly to the family, but given the primary care was with the Wife, I found that the Wife did contribute a bit more and awarded her with 60% of the indirect contributions and the Husband with the remaining 40% of the indirect contributions to the family.

On equal weightage, this averages out to:

Issue 7: Quantification of Division of Matrimonial Assets

Taking that average ratio for the quantification of that into the value of parties’ key asset, the Matrimonial Home, it would work out to the following:

Hence, I ordered for the Matrimonial Home to be sold, with 68.1% of the net sale proceeds to go to the Wife and 31.9% to the Husband. No arguments had been raised on any adjustment to factor in providing a roof over the children’s heads, but I also find that with this share of the proceeds of the Matrimonial Home, the Wife would be able to either acquire another property or rent to provide appropriate housing for the Children.

Issue 8: Spousal Maintenance

With regard to spousal maintenance, the Wife took the position at the hearing on 6 February 2026, that she was not seeking spousal maintenance, so long as the Husband fulfilled his duties to the Children and left the issue in the hands of the Court to decide.

In the case of ATE v ATD and another appeal [2016] SGCA 2, the Court of Appeal established that it is trite law that it is not the responsibility of the husband to make a full subsidy of the wife’s lifestyle and that it is incumbent on the wife to exert reasonable efforts to secure gainful employment and to sustain her pre-breakdown lifestyle.

In this regard, I note that both the Wife and the Husband are working, with university-level education and should be able to support themselves. I will note that while the Wife was at the time of the decision only running a small business with fluctuating income, she had previously been working with an international bank doing sales with a take-home income of $2,884 per month which was more than the currently alleged amount of S$1,000 per month and could find a stable job that could sufficiently pay to support herself. There was also no recorded history of spousal maintenance paid by the Husband t the Wife but rather that he would pay monies for the Children maintenance and general household payments.

Given that spousal maintenance was meant to be supplementary to division of matrimonial assets, I did not find there to be reason to order further spousal maintenance.

Issue 9: Children Custody, Care and Control and Access

In relation to the custody of the Children, joint custody is the default position. In CX v CY [2005] SGCA 37, the Court held that there would need to be exceptional circumstances for sole custody orders to be made, such as where one parent physically, sexually, or emotionally abuses the child or where the relationship of the parties was such that co-operation was impossible even after the avenues of mediation and counselling had been explored, and the lack of co-operation was harmful to the child.

Both sides had argued that they should get sole custody of the 2 Children. However, after having explained the scope of custody and care and control, and that custody related to the making of major decisions, such as schooling, education, religion, nationality, major medical and dental treatment and psychiatric intervention, Parties agreed in the hearings that they wanted major decisions to be made jointly. In particular, for religion, which Parties had differing views on, they were in agreement that the Children were at liberty to make their own decisions on this when they grew up. In the circumstances, I ordered joint custody to both parents.

The main bone of contention was that each Party was seeking sole care and control of the Children. Each of them wanted the Children to reside with them and for them to make the decisions for their day-to-day living.

Whilst there was a PPO ordered against the Wife in relation to a knife wielding incident where the Wife had been taken into police custody, that act had been directed against the Husband and the various PPO applications Parties had pursued in relation to the protection of the Children had all been dismissed after trial. There was also no documented safety concern for the Wife caring for the Children.

Additionally, as of August 2023, the Husband had moved out of the Matrimonial Home. While he attended to the Children’s parent-teacher meetings by himself, the Wife claimed it was due to language issues, that as he was more fluent in English, that he could better converse with the Children’s teachers, but she remained involved in the care of the Children. In any event, there was sufficient evidence that the Husband did not manage the day-to-day care of the Children, particularly at the time of the decision.

The current care arrangement, as explained by Parties in the hearings was that the Children resided with the Wife during the weekdays, and then Daughter would spend weekends from Friday night to about Sunday afternoon with the Husband but then the Son would remain with the Plaintiff Wife for weekends as he did not want to go over to stay with the Husband.

However, the Husband has brought the Children overseas for overnight stays during winter holidays to China, Malaysia and Thailand. The Husband also travelled often even if his place of work and place of residence was one and the same.

Taking this into consideration, I decided to maintain the status quo and awarded care and control to the Wife with the Husband to have access to the Children. The details of this were provided above in the orders made. This included the Husband’s weekend, school vacation and overseas access.

Consequentially, I also ordered for the Passports of the Children to be handed over by the Husband to the Wife within two (2) weeks of the order. In this regard, time was given as the Husband claimed that the Daughter’s passport was with ICA for renewal and may take a while for its return.

Issue 10: Children Maintenance

With regard to Children maintenance, in TIT v TIU [2016] 3 SLR 1137 at [63], the High Court emphasized that the prevailing standard for Children Maintenance must be reasonableness, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and the best interests of the child, taking into account the financial capabilities of the parents.

In relation to the proportion each parent should bear for the Child, Justice Debbie Ong in UHA v UHB and another appeal [2020] 3 SLR 666 succinctly summarized at [36] that the equal responsibility to provide for the child may not be equal sharing of expenses and may differ based on their means and capabilities:

While both parents are equally responsible for the maintenance of the Children, this may not translate in equal financial contributions, depending on their means and capacities.

As of the time of the decision, parties had entered into a by-consent interim order in MSS proceedings for S$520 per month for the Children payable by the Husband to the Wife, after attending mediation. This only amounted to S$260 per Child per month, but beyond that, the Husband was also required to:

(a) pay for the said Children's existing education-related expenses, insurance premiums & medical expenses, directly to the service providers;

(b) pay 50% of the domestic helper’s agency fee’s, salary, medical expenses (including medical checkup), flight tickets, food (capped at $150 per month), levy and other expenses that the helper's employer is required to pay, to be reimbursed to the Wife on or before the last day of every month, via PayNow to her mobile number.

This appears to amount to a sum of about S$1,000 per month overall.

The Wife claimed that this sum was insufficient, particularly as she was only earning S$1,000 per month from her small business, which was lower than her income while working at the international bank of $2,884 per month.

The Husband took the position that Parties share the reasonable expenses of the Children equally. The Wife, on the other hand, claimed that the Husband should pay for the Children. She claimed that the Husband should pay 100% of the Children maintenance sums as he is a CEO of the company. The Husband had declared his earnings to be S$9,741 per month and that he would also receive a yearly directorial fee of S$4,964, which is about S$413.67 per month. So overall, that would be income of over S$10,000 per month, not taking into account any bonuses or other benefits.

On that basis, taking the rough financial potential of the Wife and the Husband of a combined salary of S$13,038.67 (i.e. S$2,884 + S$10,154.67), the Wife’s proportion of the aggregate salary amounted to 22.1%, and the Husband’s share amounted to 77.9%. Rounding off this sum to take into account that the Wife’s current income is lower and she would need time to increase her income, I adjusted parties’ sharing of the Children’s reasonable expenses to be 20% being borne by the Wife and 80% being borne by the Husband.

The reasonable monthly expenses of the Children were determined to be as follows having taken into account each Party’s position:

Hence, the Husband’s 80% share for the payment of each Child’s reasonable expenses would be S$1,181.17. Rounding it off, that would be S$1,200 per Child per month, so that would be an aggregate sum of S$2,400 per month for the 2 Children. This would also mean that the Wife would be responsible for all the payments for the Children as the Husband would be contributing his share to the Wife and not paying for the sums directly.

Conclusion

While I had sympathies for the Wife of finding ways to care for the Children given this significant upheaval, her expectation to be awarded the whole of the Matrimonial Home was not realistic. She often got emotional and was not particularly concise in presenting her case. On the other hand, the Husband who was often calmer and more organized in proceedings, did also take positions in proceedings which were questionable. An adverse inference was drawn against him as the Wife presented cogent evidence of his non-compliance with disclosure orders and this further suggested that he had undisclosed assets, which had to be taken into account.

Overall, while Parties tried their best to present their cases, proceedings became more complicated as Parties raised complex issues without the assistance of a lawyer to help to organize the facts and to test the legal soundness of the claims that they were making. Much time had to be spent on clarifying positions and in reviewing the documents for the allegations made. This was further complicated by documents not being in English and that additional time had to be spent on the oral submissions being translated for the benefit of the Wife. Generally, a significant amount of time was spent on the division of matrimonial assets as the information provided was fairly convoluted, and not much time was spent on the Children issues.