YGD v YGE

Facts

A divorced husband and wife filed cross-applications to enforce child maintenance arrears. Their divorce ended with final judgment extracted on 19 March 2024, and the ancillary matters were settled by consent, with the husband to pay $1837 each month as maintenance for the two children. The husband later sought sole custody, care and control and a contribution from the wife, and the wife was ordered to pay a monthly sum with effect from March 2025.

Each side then fell into arrears. In MSS 98 of 2026 the wife sought to enforce $2704.31 owed by the husband; in MSS 188 of 2026 the husband sought to enforce $7268 owed by the wife. Both applications were tried together on 20 May 2026, with both parties unrepresented.

Issues

1. Whether the arrears claimed in each application were established.
2. Whether the arrears should be enforced against each party despite their reasons for non-payment.
3. Whether the two sets of arrears should be set off against each other.

Holding

The Family Court allowed both applications. The husband was ordered to pay $2704.31 in instalments of $225 and the wife $6743 in instalments of $562, with default sentences of imprisonment for failing to show proof of payment. The court declined to make the attachment of debt or earnings order the husband sought.

Reasoning

On the amounts, the husband did not dispute the $2704.31 figure. For the wife, she admitted not paying her monthly maintenance of $613 from March 2025 to January 2026, and the court fixed her arrears at $6743. It rejected the husband's claim for February 2025, as no order then required the wife to pay.

On enforcement, both parties had withheld payment by unilateral set-off. The wife said she believed she could set off what she owed against the husband's arrears. The husband said he paid for school expenses the children told him they lacked, and deducted these from the consent-order sum. The court held that court orders must be obeyed, and parties may not take matters into their own hands and justify themselves at the enforcement stage.

On set-off, the court refused to net the sums. Both parties had shown a readiness to disregard maintenance orders, partly because of their acrimony, and a set-off would wrongly let the party with smaller arrears escape the consequences of non-payment. The husband was to show proof of payment for June, July and August, and each faced imprisonment for 2 days on default. The court urged the parties to move forward with their lives.

From the judgment