UBQ v UBR

Facts

The parties married in May 2006 in America and later divorced in Divorce (Transferred) No 1861 of 2015, followed by years of applications in the family courts and appeals that had all ended. In the ancillary matters decided on 21 September 2020, Tan Puay Boon JC ordered the husband to pay S$2,500 a month for each of the two sons, the full costs of their education, health and enrichment, and S$10,000 a year for each child's travel. The wife was to receive S$6,000 a month for 48 months plus rent, backdated by 24 months. Appeals and cross-appeals against those orders were withdrawn.

Four days before her own maintenance was due to expire, the wife, now 53, unemployed and representing herself, applied in HCF/SUM 300/2024 to vary the orders. She sought higher maintenance for the sons, more travel money, her S$6,000 a month "in perpetuity" or for at least five more years, her medical costs and S$7,000 a month in rent. She said the sons had depression and anxiety, that the elder son no longer wished to see his father, and that she could not find work. The husband, who works at a sovereign wealth fund, applied in HCF/SUM 22/2025 to strike out parts of her affidavit, or to reply to it.

Issues

1. Whether the wife could seek a contribution to the children's rent in a variation application rather than an appeal
2. Whether there had been a material change in circumstances justifying more maintenance for the wife
3. Whether the sons' maintenance should be increased

Holding

The High Court (Family Division) dismissed the wife's variation application in HCF/SUM 300/2024. It made no order on the husband's application in HCF/SUM 22/2025, which it found no longer relevant.

Reasoning

The court explained that a variation is not an appeal. Beyond the time for appeal, the applicant must show a material change of circumstances, and generally cannot seek fresh relief that was not argued before. A share of the children's rent was such new relief and belonged in an appeal, so it was refused.

On her own maintenance, the burden lay on the wife to show she had taken reasonable steps to find work. The court was not satisfied. She showed no evidence of actual job applications despite her networking and qualification, and much of what she raised was not new and should have been appealed. Running out of money was not, in law, a material change. The court agreed that Tan JC's judgment showed large transfers to her besides the maintenance, and read the 48-month limit as time for her to become self-sufficient.

On the sons, the court considered S$2,500 each generous when education, enrichment and health were paid separately, and not inadequate even now. The wife had not shown a material change in their welfare; the husband said the boys were well-adjusted and on holiday abroad. Filing at the last minute only highlighted her lack of effort.

From the judgment