SINGAPORE: A woman who was in a DINK ( dual income, no kids ) marriage is set to get an extra sum of about S$ 267, 000 ( US$ 197, 700 ) from her ex-husband in their divorce proceedings, after partially succeeding in her appeal against the ruling in the case.
Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal determined in a ruling released on Wednesday ( Jul 10 ) that the lower court judge who rendered the decision had not taken into account either party’s indirect contributions to the marriage.
After adjusting for the direct efforts, the judge ordered the partner to give the woman another S$ 266, 723.09.  ,
He also overturned the lower court’s cost buy against the woman, requiring that rather, each party carry their own expenses.
THE Relationship
The pair, who had been married for about eight and a half years, had no children throughout their federation. They were married in October 2011.  ,
They both shared a marriage Housing Board apartment, which was purchased shortly before the wedding, but they did no reside there.
Rather, they lived with the father’s kids. Additionally, they agreed that the sister’s parents may remain in their marital residence in exchange for a monthly rental price, and they later sold this residence in 2018.
When the pair lived at the husband’s relatives ‘ apartment, there were companions who cleaned and cooked for them.
The pair did not appear to be in a particularly near relation, and the judge noted that there were other underlying causes for this.
The woman claimed that the husband may spend time pursuing his own interests, taking her care, and causing them to rift for decades.
She claimed that they only engaged in” occasional sex,” which was done to “get it out of the approach” rather than as a result of passion.
The woman allegedly started an affair with her boyfriend a time into their union, meeting him in hotels, and traveling together under the pretense of taking business trips.
He claimed that the wife’s decision to spend her completely time with other people contributed to the couple’s lack of meaningful connection.
The woman and her husband’s family moved out of their house in November 2020, and both sides have different interpretations for why.
The girl claimed that she” sought solace in a female companion, as a friend” and told her husband about it. She claimed that her father then attempted to improve the marriage, but she still felt unappreciated.
Finding his behavior terrible, she therefore moved away and stayed with her own families.
The person claimed that because he thought his wife might have a fresh occasion, he had told her to leave.
The divorce process started in March 2022, and a preliminary view was issued in June that year.
THE DISTRICT JUDGE’S Results
The district judge found that the total matrimonial assets amounted to about S$ 3.2 million, with the husband contributing S$ 2.99 million directly (93.33 per cent ) and the wife contributing S$ 213, 773.28 ( 6.67 per cent ).
The lower courtroom judge cited a previous ruling that stated that in a short and single marriage, the parties ‘ immediate financial contributions will typically be modest because the parties ‘ non-financial contributions will be the least. In this case, the judge relied on a past judgment.
Hence, the district judge assessed just the couple’s strong contributions and gave zero bodyweight to the direct contributions.
The district judge found that the father was entitled to about S$ 2.99 million, while the woman was entitled to S$ 213, 773. The district judge also owed the wife an additional S$ 9,800 that the district judge had to pay the woman.
ON APPEAL
The girl, who was represented by Mr Alfred Dodwell, appealed against the selection. The district judge erred in holding that indirect accomplishments were unimportant because this involved what he saw as a” short” relationship, even though the High Court rejected most of her claims.
According to Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal,” little marriages” in earlier cases were so small that they did not even continue the required three-year period before a celebration could seek divorce.
” For marriages of even a slightly longer ( if nonetheless relatively modest ) nature, our courts have typically given weight to the parties ‘ indirect contributions”, he said.
He claimed that marriages in which children do not have really “apply with similar power” to the basic principle that “gives some mass to direct contributions in most circumstances.”
” There is, after all, intrinsic worth in the institution of marriage itself, which may have in the department process”, said Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal.
He claimed that marriage provides the majority of the husband and wife with a friendly foundation for their professional careers.
” One should not thus minimize the significance of relationship in promoting each other’s professional and personal success.” In particular, he said,” the triumphs and accomplishments that each group to a relationship in a double-income, single marriage may not normally be seen as the product of individual difficult work and effort but as inextricably linked to the parties ‘ support, encouragement, and sacrifices made to each other.”  ,
” This can manifest in a variety of ways,” says one companion, who may have additional home responsibilities to help the various succeed in their careers, or who provides significant emotional support to each other when they encounter numerous difficulties in life.
The woman claimed that the city court’s inaction “effectively indicates that a single woman is a stupid wife and her works and contributions to her husband are not recognized or given any weight” and that the wife had overstated the point.
He acknowledged, however, that the couple may have typically been deeply invested in each other’s personal and professional development even in the context of a single marriage.
” The law in relation to the department of marital assets if therefore, where possible, reflect the systematic nature of the institution of marriage and, in the process, honour the shared journey and purchase ( of time, effort and sacrifice ) made as a partnership”, he said.
ARGUMENTS ON INDIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS
The wife claimed she had supported the husband in both his personal and professional endeavors in their arguments about how much indirect contributions they had made.
She claimed to take him to social events, looked after their pet dogs, and provided day-to-day care for the dogs.
She claimed she attended to her husband’s needs as a devoted wife, helped with household chores and accompanied her mother-in-law to help with chores.
The husband, who was represented by Ms Amy Lim Chiew Hong and Ms Rae-Anne Lim Xiaohui, argued that he paid for his wife’s yoga classes, beauty regimens and pet dogs, which he also cared for.  ,
He claimed that he had given his parents ‘ helpers instructions to wash the car, wash the wife’s clothes, and cook her favorite dishes.
The husband’s parents gave the couple the master bedroom, and the husband said he paid S$ 500 each month to his parents as the couple’s contributions towards the costs of the household.
He claimed to have paid for dinners on anniversaries and other special occasions for his wife by taking her to the airport, buying gifts for her, and paying for her transportation.
The judge split the parties ‘ indirect contributions 50/50, according to the judge, who determined that they appeared to be roughly equal.
The judge criticized the alleged affairs saying it “is not the function of this court to lay blame on who is more accountable for the breakdown of the parties ‘ relationship.”
” I would point out, however, that the fact that one party had an extramarital affair does not imply that the other party had neglected the marriage as well,” he said.  ,
In the circumstances, I would generally interpret such assertions as a largely neutral factor in determining the ratio of parties ‘ indirect contributions to each other, even if they were true, which is not a matter on here.
The judge then reapplied the relevant framework, calculating the husband’s direct contributions as 93.33 percent and 6.67 percent, respectively.
He rounded off the final ratio by 85 % to the husband and 15 % to the wife, giving indirect contributions to both parties at the same rate of 50 %.
Under the new percentages, the husband is entitled to S$ 2.7 million and the wife to about S$ 480, 500. The court ordered the man to transfer the extra S$ 266, 723.09 owed to the ex-wife in cash within four weeks.