VWM v VWN

Facts

The wife and husband married on 2 May 2015 and have two young children. The husband stopped living with the family in January 2019, and interim judgment was granted on 4 February 2020. On 31 May 2021 a district judge made ancillary orders: joint custody with care and control to the wife, division of the matrimonial assets other than the home in the ratio of 64.5:35.5 in her favour, no maintenance for the wife, and $1,100 a month for the children. The matrimonial home, an uncompleted Built-to-Order HDB flat in Tampines, was to be surrendered to the HDB with refunds in proportion to contributions, and the wife was ordered to transfer $45,574.80 to the husband's CPF account. The district judge had also drawn an adverse inference against the wife for depleting much of her share of a fixed deposit without accounting for it.

The wife appealed against the whole decision in HCF/DCA 73/2021. She sought a 75% indirect contribution, greater weight on indirect contributions, a further 5% uplift for the children's needs, and the right to buy the flat in her sole name without refunding the husband's CPF money. The husband, acting in person, asked that the orders be affirmed. These grounds address the matrimonial home, the only part further appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the wife's indirect contribution and the weight given to it should be increased
2. Whether the ratio should be adjusted further for the children's needs
3. Whether the flat should be transferred to the wife instead of surrendered to the HDB

Holding

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the district judge's orders, save that child maintenance was increased to $1,144 a month with the husband's consent. It also dismissed the wife's application to adduce fresh evidence, and ordered her to transfer $45,574.80 to the husband's CPF account within 30 days.

Reasoning

The court held that the wife placed unduly great emphasis on having borne the children and having care and control. Bearing children is often part of marriage, and it was unrealistic to expect special reward for it in the manner she proposed. AXW v AXX [2012] 3 SLR 900 did not require the same approach, and the wife there had in any event lost her appeal.

Her proposal amounted to double recognition: about 75% for both direct and indirect contributions and another 5% on top, which was grossly unfair and wholly undeserved given the short marriage.

On the flat, the court found the wife's position unreasonable. She was much better off than the husband in CPF savings and cash, yet sought to keep the flat without refunding the $16,141.50 he had paid from his CPF. Saying the flat had no value was absurd when it was bought at $467,130. Keeping it without refund or compensation would give her a windfall and undercut the adverse inference drawn for her unexplained spending. The husband needed a roof over his head as much as she did.

From the judgment