WQZ v WQY

The Wife and the Husband married on 26 January 2013 and have two sons, aged 8 years old and 6 years old at the hearing. The Wife began divorce proceedings, Divorce No 5152 of 2023, on 26 October 2023 and Interim Judgment was granted on 6 March 2024. After mediation the parties agreed interim arrangements, including interim care and control to the Wife and maintenance of S$2,450 per month for the children, and no spousal maintenance. Both worked: the Wife as a relationship manager at a bank and the Husband running a retail business selling luxury watches through a company, XXX Treasure Pte Ltd.

The Family Court heard the contested ancillary matters: custody, care and control and access, the division of matrimonial assets, and maintenance for the children. The Wife sought sole custody, citing incidents she said had occurred in front of the children; a personal protection order she had obtained was later set aside on appeal. On the assets, the main disputes were the value of the matrimonial home at Kovan Rise, whether the Husband held all or only 60% of XXX Treasure, several liabilities, and the Husband's claims that the Wife had dissipated money and should face adverse inferences.

1. Whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying sole custody, and which parent should have care and control and on what access terms.
2. How the pool of matrimonial assets should be identified and valued, including the Husband's interest in XXX Treasure and sums alleged to have been dissipated.
3. How the assets should be divided between the parties in a dual-income marriage.
4. What maintenance the Husband should pay for the children and whether the Wife's claim for arrears should be allowed.

On custody, the court found that both parents had been involved in decisions on schooling and medical care, and that friction during access was attributable to the stress of the proceedings rather than an inability to cooperate, so sole custody was not warranted. On care and control, the Wife had been the primary caregiver with stronger contemporaneous evidence of involvement, and her plans were more structured. The children had lived with her since December 2023. Overnight access was graduated to let the children adjust.

On the pool, the court adopted the Husband's valuation of $1.8 million for the home and assessed its net value at $756,106.25. The Husband had not proved on a balance of probabilities that he held only 60% of XXX Treasure, since the company's business profile showed him as sole shareholder and the two alleged investors had not come forward, so its agreed value of $524,670.00 was included. Applying UZN v UZM [2020] SGCA 109, the court added back $30,000.00 paid to the Wife's father when divorce was imminent and $50,000.00 transferred to her aunt without explanation and some legal fees, but declined to trace years of joint account movements. An adverse inference was drawn against the Wife for not disclosing a bank account in her name.

On division, the structured approach in ANJ v ANK [2015] 5 SLR 1043 applied. Direct contributions were assessed at 42.4% to the Wife, and indirect contributions at 70:30 in her favour given her account of supporting the family and children. The Husband received an uplift of 0.5% for the adverse inference.

On maintenance, the Husband's income was taken as an average of his tax assessments, about $12,700.00 a month, against about $8,000.00 for the Wife. Entertainment and outings were disallowed from the children's expenses. The Wife's $20,000.00 withdrawal from the joint account was treated as reimbursing the Husband's share before the interim order, and claiming arrears on top would be two bites of the same cherry.

The District Judge ordered joint custody, with care and control to the Wife and unsupervised access to the Husband on set days, with overnight access on the last weekend of each month starting 3 months after the orders, with a review in 6 months. The parties were ordered not to record the children for use as evidence. The matrimonial assets were divided 55.7% to the Wife and 44.3% to the Husband, with the Husband's interest in the matrimonial home to be transferred to the Wife for $62,054.90, or the home to be sold if she declined. The Husband was ordered to pay $2,125.00 a month for the children from 1 September 2025, with future medical, education and enrichment costs shared 39% by the Wife and 61% by the Husband. The arrears claim of $38,896.10 was refused, and costs were left for further submissions.