WWQ v WWR

Facts

The Wife (appellant) and the Husband (respondent) married on 31 May 2003 in Nottingham and have one child, aged 12. The Wife filed for divorce in Singapore on 13 August 2014, and on 26 March 2015 interim judgment was granted with ancillary matters settled by a consent order fixing the Husband's maintenance for the child at S$1,400 per month.

On 6 January 2023 the Husband applied in FC/SUM 61/2023 to vary the consent order. He said that in 2015 he earned €2,200 a month and lived with his mother in Spain, that he was retrenched in mid-2019, moved to Singapore in November 2019 and became a relief teacher, and that his rent, meals and household costs had risen, with expenses he put at S$4,103.30 a month. A District Judge granted the application on 17 January 2024, reducing the child's maintenance to S$850 per month. The Wife appealed in District Court Appeal No 9 of 2024, arguing that the Husband had not proved a material change in circumstances, pointing out that the documents he cited as "TAB 8" were never annexed to his affidavit.

Issues

1. Whether there had been a material change in the Husband's circumstances under ss 118 and 119 of the Women's Charter justifying a reduction in child maintenance
2. Whether the court should vary maintenance fixed by a consent order between the parties

Holding

The court allowed the appeal in its entirety and restored the child's maintenance. As the Husband had paid only S$700 since 2 January 2020, it backdated the maintenance to that date and, to avoid crippling him with a lump sum, ordered the arrears paid in instalments of S$1,000 per month for the next 42 months. The Wife's application to adduce fresh evidence, HCF/SUM 309/2024, had been discontinued, so no orders were made on it. Costs were to be addressed in written submissions.

Reasoning

On material change, the court found that the child's maintenance should not have been reduced. The Husband's last known income, in 2022, averaged S$4,529 a month, and he had since taken a full-time post at the same school, so his income had not fallen since 2015. He gave no convincing evidence for his claimed expenses, and his assertion that his rent would rise from S$1,000 to S$2,500 came without proof or explanation. A bare claim of higher expenses did not show a material change.

On the consent order, the court noted that S$1,400 was agreed by the parties, and courts will not lightly vary a settlement merely to reach what seems a fairer result, since parties have their own reasons for settling, citing AON v AOO [2011] 2 SLR 926 and Lee Min Jai v Chua Cheow Koon [2005] 1 SLR(R) 548. That principle applied equally under ss 118 and 119. The Husband's claim that he signed while suffering a depressive episode did not prove that the Wife took unfair advantage of him.

From the judgment