YBG v YBH
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kevin Ho |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | Chia Ngee Thuang & Co., SY Legal, Chia Ti Lik, Yeow Swee Ling Sharon |
Source: [2026] SGFC 50, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YBG v YBH [2026] SGFC 50, decided on 2 April 2026 by District Judge Kevin Ho, resolved two concurrent applications arising from divorce proceedings. The Husband applied in FC/OADV 709/2025 to rescind the wife maintenance order (paragraph 3e of the Interim Judgment for Divorce dated 13 February 2023), which required him to pay S$2,000 per month. The Wife had filed MSS 1726/2025 in August 2025 to enforce that same maintenance order. The case considers whether a consent order for maintenance can be set aside on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, together with the parallel question of enforcement where maintenance has allegedly not been paid.
[2026] SGFC 50 explained
YBG v YBH ([2026] SGFC 50) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 7 April 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 50 about?
YBG v YBH ([2026] SGFC 50) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law — Ancillary powers of court — Setting aside of maintenance order —Whether consent order for maintenance should be set-aside for misrepresentation Family Law — Consent Orders — Rescission of order — Whether order procured by reason of fraudulent misrepresentation Family Law — Maintenance for wife – Enforcement of maintenance order”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 50 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGFC 113. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
A husband sought to rescind a consent maintenance order of $2,000 per month for his wife, embedded in a 2023 Interim Judgment, on the basis that she had fraudulently misrepresented that the figure was merely "symbolic" and would never be enforced. The wife simultaneously sought enforcement of $68,000 in arrears accumulated since the Final Judgment. District Judge Kevin Ho dismissed the husband's rescission application in its entirety, finding no fraudulent misrepresentation, and made an enforcement order for the full $68,000 in arrears, payable in instalments of $2,000 per month alongside the ongoing monthly maintenance, with a default three-day imprisonment term.
Can a consent maintenance order be rescinded for misrepresentation in Singapore family proceedings ([2026] SGFC 50)?
In YBG v YBH [2026] SGFC 50, District Judge Kevin Ho examined whether the wife-maintenance consent order in the Interim Judgment of 13 February 2023 — requiring S$2,000 per month — could be rescinded on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, alongside the Wife's concurrent enforcement summons filed in August 2025.
Cases Cited (17)
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 50)