YGP v YGQ
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Soh Kian Peng |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
Source: [2026] SGFC 109, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YGP v YGQ [2026] SGFC 109 is a decision of Magistrate Soh Kian Peng in the Family Court, dated 6 August 2026, in MSS 2606 of 2025. The Wife applied under s 72 of the Women's Charter 1961 to vary maintenance order MO 58, under which the Husband paid $3250 as spousal maintenance and $3250 for the son. She cited a cancelled credit card, legal fees, future divorce proceedings, upskilling course fees and an extra $1,500 monthly for the son's university. The court held the court's power covers only monetary sums and that future expenses are not a change in circumstances, and dismissed the variation of her maintenance. It ordered the Husband to pay for the son's therapy sessions and language classes.
Summary
The Family Court heard the Wife's application to vary maintenance order MO 58, under which the Husband paid $3250 in spousal maintenance and $3250 for the son. The court dismissed the variation of her own maintenance, finding no change in circumstances or good cause, and rejected the claim for an extra $1,500 monthly child maintenance for university fees not yet incurred. It allowed the son's application to the extent that the Husband pay for therapy sessions and language classes.
What was YGP v YGQ [2026] SGFC 109 about?
The Wife applied to vary a consent maintenance order for herself and the son. The Family Court dismissed the variation of her maintenance but ordered the Husband to pay for the son's therapy sessions and language classes.
Why was the university-fees request refused in [2026] SGFC 109?
The Wife sought an extra $1,500 monthly for the son's university, but the fees had not yet been incurred. The court held s 72 of the Women's Charter 1961 requires an actual change in circumstances, not anticipated future events.
Cases Cited (4)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 109)