VEG v VEF

[2024] SGHCF 14 High Court (Family Division) 22 February 2024 HCF/DCA 68/2023 6 min read

Key facts

Court High Court (Family Division)
Decided
Judge Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim Family Law
Counsel Selvam LLC, Faustina Joyce Fernando, Loh Weijie Leonard

Source: [2024] SGHCF 14, High Court (Family Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (3)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

VEG v VEF [2024] SGHCF 14 was decided in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) on 22 February 2024, with judgment reserved and delivered by Choo Han Teck J after hearings on 26 January and 5 February 2024 in District Court Appeal No 68 of 2023. The case concerned the variation of consent orders and the maintenance of a child. According to the judgment, the parties married on 22 October 2006 and had one daughter, turning 17 that year. Interim judgment was granted on 8 October 2012, with ancillary matters dealt with on an uncontested basis, and the court order was later varied by consent on 21 October 2021. The respondent wife then applied in FC/SUM 695 of 2023 to vary the order regarding the daughter's maintenance payable by the appellant husband, and the District Judge allowed the application in part. The appellant husband appealed against that decision. The judgment records that the appellant works as a consultant in Saudi Arabia earning $16,690 a month, while the respondent is a freelance consultant in the Food and Beverage industry without a fixed monthly income but said to earn an average of $4,000 a month, which the District Judge accepted based on bank and CPF statements and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's confirmation that there were no Notices of Assessment for the respondent in the past three years. Counsel for the appellant, Mr Leonard Loh of Selvam LLC, submitted that the respondent did not provide full and frank disclosure of her income documents.

[2024] SGHCF 14 explained

VEG v VEF ([2024] SGHCF 14) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Family Division) on 22 February 2024. It is categorised under Family Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHCF 14 about?

VEG v VEF ([2024] SGHCF 14) is a High Court (Family Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Family Law — Consent orders — Variation” and “Family Law — Child — Maintenance of child”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Summary

In this District Court appeal in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division), a husband appealed against a district judge's decision allowing in part the wife's application to vary an earlier consent order concerning maintenance for the parties' teenage daughter, with the husband contending that the wife had not made full and frank disclosure of her income and bank accounts. The court examined the wife's disclosure, including bank statements and a previously undisclosed investment account, as well as a varied term that no receipts or travel log were required for the daughter's pocket money, viewing that variation against the husband's earlier maintenance arrears. The court varied the order below accordingly and made no order as to costs.

What was VEG v VEF [2024] SGHCF 14 about?

VEG v VEF [2024] SGHCF 14, decided by Choo Han Teck J in the Family Division on 22 February 2024, was an appeal concerning the variation of consent orders relating to the maintenance of the parties' daughter, after the District Judge allowed the respondent wife's variation application in part.

What were the parties' incomes in VEG v VEF [2024] SGHCF 14?

Per the judgment, the appellant husband works as a consultant in Saudi Arabia earning $16,690 a month, while the respondent wife is a freelance Food and Beverage consultant with no fixed income who said she earns an average of $4,000 a month, which the District Judge accepted.

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHCF 14)