SINGAPORE - A woman who assumed greater responsibilities on the homemaking front so her husband could build his business has been granted a third of the couple's matrimonial assets, which amounts to $2.2 million.
In judgment published on May 20, High Court Justice Dedar Singh Gill noted that the woman had directly contributed around 5.9 per cent, or $400,000, to the asset pool, while the man provided around $6.4 million.
He said that the man, 45, bore most of the indirect financial contributions as he had greater financial capacity, and his supplementary credit card enabled the wife to pay for household expenses.
Meanwhile, the wife, 44, assumed greater responsibilities on the homemaking front.
She looked after their three children, aged nine to 16, oversaw their studies and managed the household, including the supervision of their helper.
"It is also notable that the wife supported the husband's career, having resigned from her job to commence work at the husband's company," the judge said.
As a result, the husband was able to focus his energy on growing the company because his wife had helped with the firm's administrative side and looked after the family.
The husband's company, which was sold in 2020, was not named in court documents.
Before divorce proceedings began in 2023, the man made a number of financial transactions which he tried to hide from the court at the start of divorce proceedings.
It was only later that the husband claimed he had transferred large sums to his parents to repay matrimonial "loans" and because he held a portion of his company's shares on trust for his father.
The judge said the husband's behaviour in delaying his explanations of certain expenditures and disclosure of financial documents was "egregious".
Because of this, Justice Gill awarded costs of $5,000 to the wife, noting how the husband's acts had unduly prolonged the matter before the court.
Justice Gill said parties in such cases must "scrupulously observe their duty of full and frank disclosure".
"They must resist the temptation to deny the other spouse his or her rightful entitlement through, for example, concealment of assets, protracted disclosure of relevant documents or even the creation of documents in an attempt to legitimise transactions.
"Parties should take careful note that the court possesses tools to not only expose such reprehensible conduct but also to visit consequences on the errant spouse," Justice Gill added.
The pair had tied the knot in 2008 and, despite attempts at reconciliation, the woman filed for divorce in June 2023 and interim judgment was granted on Jan 2, 2024.
The couple and their three children lived in a rented home but in 2023, the man moved out with the two older children, while the woman and their youngest child, a daughter, lived together.
The woman sought sole custody of their youngest child and joint custody of the two older children, while the husband requested joint custody of all three children.
She claimed the husband was abusive and said that he did not spend time with their youngest child after the marriage broke down. The judge said the allegations were unproven and granted the couple joint custody of their children.
[[nid:714095]]
The man argued for sole care and control, noting it was not in the youngest child's interest to grow up separately from her siblings. He said he had support from a domestic helper and the children's paternal grandparents to raise the children.
In giving the husband sole care and control of the children, Justice Gill said he found the husband was able to provide a more robust care arrangement for the children, including having flexibility in his work to be more present to their daily needs.
The judge added that a mother's role in a child's development is of great importance and hence ordered that the wife should be permitted regular access to the children.
This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.
