YHS v YHT
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Azmin Jailani |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | PKWA Law Practice LLC, Athelia Ong Kai Qi, Choo Heng Han, Derek |
Source: [2026] SGFC 116, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YHS v YHT [2026] SGFC 116 is a decision of District Judge Azmin Jailani in the Family Court, with grounds dated 21 August 2026, in FC/OADV 88/2026. The mother applied for the father to pay $3964 per month in child maintenance, backdated to the date the interim judgment was amended by consent, in ORC 4101 made on 6 September 2024, so that she alone maintained the child. The issues were whether she could go back on that agreement, whether the court should exercise its powers under s 73 of the Women's Charter 1961 and when any order should start. The court found no material and substantial change in circumstances warranting intervention and dismissed OADV 88. It varied clause 3(e) of the interim judgment so that the father pays $600 on the last day of each month from 31 March 2026, with arrears paid at $200 monthly.
[2026] SGFC 116 explained
YHS v YHT ([2026] SGFC 116) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 21 August 2026. It is categorised under Family Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGFC 116 about?
YHS v YHT ([2026] SGFC 116) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law - Variation – Child Maintenance - Variation of consent order for one parent to solely maintain the child”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
The Family Court dealt with a mother's application in FC/OADV 88/2026 for the father to pay $3964 per month in child maintenance, and for backdating, despite a consent order under which she alone would maintain the child. The court found no radical change in circumstances to justify reopening the agreement and dismissed the application. Using its powers under the Women's Charter 1961, it varied the order so that the father pays $600 a month from 31 March 2026, with arrears paid at $200 a month.
What maintenance did the court order in YHS v YHT [2026] SGFC 116?
The Family Court dismissed the mother's claim for $3964 a month but varied the order so the father pays $600 a month for the child from 31 March 2026, with any outstanding arrears paid in monthly instalments of $200.
Why was backdated child maintenance refused in [2026] SGFC 116?
The court saw no basis for maintenance to start from the date the mother agreed to waive child maintenance under ORC 4101. It made maintenance payable from the month the applications were heard, which was March 2026 onwards.
Cases Cited (6)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 116)