XDJ v XDK

The parties married on 29 March 2009, and interim judgment of divorce was granted on 9 May 2023. In FC/D 5839/2022 a District Judge divided the matrimonial assets and awarded the Wife (XDJ) spousal maintenance of $450 a month. The District Judge added back to the pool $110,000 found to have been dissipated by the Wife and $10,000 she paid her mother as rent, treated the Husband's DBS loan as a matrimonial liability, and gave the Husband the larger share of indirect contributions.

The Wife appealed in District Court Appeal No 80 of 2024. She said the $110,000 was money held for her mother, that sums she alleged the Husband had dissipated should be added back (including transfers of $15,696.77 to his girlfriend), that the DBS loan was not a matrimonial liability, that she deserved a higher indirect contribution share, that an adverse inference should be drawn over the Husband's valuation of his business at $0, and that she needed $3,800 a month in maintenance.

1. Whether the $110,000 and the rent paid to the Wife's mother should be added back to the pool.
2. Whether sums spent by the Husband should be added back, and whether his DBS loan was a matrimonial liability.
3. Whether the indirect contribution ratio should change or an adverse inference be drawn against the Husband.
4. Whether spousal maintenance should be increased.

The WhatsApp chat relied on for the $110,000 came after proceedings began and carried little weight; the money appeared to be a gift. Applying CLC v CLB [2023] 1 SLR 1260, the Wife had to trace the gift to what she later paid her mother, and the account had dipped below the gift amount with unexplained withdrawals. The rent finding was not shown to be wrong, as the mother had only sought rent once the marriage soured.

The girlfriend transfers were not run-of-the-mill expenses and were substantial under TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter [2017] 1 SLR 609. The Wife's other claims of dissipation lacked evidence. The evidence supported the finding that the Husband borrowed because of her medical charges on his cards, while she kept insurance reimbursements.

The Wife showed no error in the indirect contribution assessment. She had withdrawn her adverse inference request below, the business documents had been disclosed, and she never sought discovery. On maintenance, her claimed rent was unproven, but her insurance premiums were higher than found, and the Husband's unpaid salary and debts were weighed.

The court allowed the appeal in part. It added the $15,696.77 transferred to the Husband's girlfriend back to the pool as his direct contribution, deducted the Wife's omitted liabilities of $212.74, and raised maintenance from $450 to $650 per month from 22 July 2024. The rest of the appeal was dismissed, and the Husband, having substantially succeeded, was awarded costs of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements.