XCV v XCW

Facts

The husband (XCV) and the wife (XCW) married in India on 8 June 1997, moved to Singapore that year and became citizens in 2005. They have two adult children. The husband filed for divorce in India on 18 December 2018 and the wife filed in Singapore two days later; the Singapore case was stayed by consent and the divorce was finalised in India on 6 January 2020. No ancillary orders were sought there.

On 26 August 2022 the husband sought leave under s 121B of the Women's Charter 1961 to apply for financial relief, saying he wanted only the Singapore properties divided: an HDB flat and a condominium, both jointly owned. He later amended his application to cover assets in India as well, including properties in Chennai and Bangalore. The District Judge declined to divide the Indian assets, gave the wife the larger share of the Singapore assets, transferred the HDB flat to her and ordered the condominium sold, with a lump sum of $65,245.04 to her. The husband appealed in District Court Appeal No 85 of 2024 and, by Summons No 299 of 2024, sought to adduce further evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the husband should be allowed to adduce further evidence on appeal.
2. Whether the District Judge was wrong not to divide the assets in India.
3. Whether the uplifts to the wife's share for non-disclosure and rent-free occupation, and the valuation dates used, were wrong.
4. Whether the husband should be allowed to keep the condominium.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the summons to adduce further evidence and allowed the appeal in part only, varying the order so that the husband may keep the condominium if he pays the wife $65,245.04; all other orders stood. Because the variation rested on the wife's consent, he was ordered to pay her costs of $3,500 plus disbursements.

Reasoning

The new material could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the hearing below and would not have changed the result.

On the Indian assets, the husband had not mentioned them when seeking leave, gave no documents on their existence or value, did not seek discovery of them, and offered no expert opinion to counter the wife's evidence that a Singapore order might not be enforceable in India. The Indian court was the more appropriate forum. His complaints against his former solicitors were unsubstantiated; he had been represented by several firms, and the court, citing Thennarasu s/o Karupiah v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 4, said grave allegations against counsel need strong evidence.

It was undisputed that he had failed to disclose years of bank statements as ordered, so the adverse inference stood; the $5,000 costs below were not a penalty for that but followed his rejection of a better offer. Police reports supported the finding that the wife and children were effectively forced out of the flat, and in any event his exclusive occupation was undisputed, so the rent-free uplift was proper. Both parties' CPF was valued at 1 January 2020, and using that date for the insurance policy was fair since the divorce had long been final. Taking the condominium's value and mortgage balance at the same December 2023 date was correct, given his control of the rental income and his CPF refunds. His own table of what he would receive gave no basis for intervention.

The request to keep the condominium was not a valid ground of appeal, but the wife did not object provided she was paid her share.

From the judgment