Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
WPK v WPJ [2024] SGHCF 8
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Facts
1 The parties married in December 1998 and were divorced in October 2021. They have two adult children. The Husband appeals against the DJ’s decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets, the backdated maintenance, and the provisions (or lack thereof) made for the children’s tertiary educational expenses.
Court's Decision:
2 In long, single-income marriages, where the non-working spouse is the primary homemaker during the marriage, it is generally fairer and more equitable for the matrimonial assets to be divided equally. The non-working spouse’s efforts at home are not less important than that of the breadwinner. A union of the two is needed to make a marriage work.: at [7].
3 Both parents have a parental duty to maintain their children and support them through their education, including tertiary education. However, the guiding principle as to the extent of that duty is reasonableness. Children’s expenses, including those of tertiary education, must be reasonable.: at [10].
4 If the children wish to go for further studies, reliance on parental scholarship is not their only available option. They can pay their own way by finding employment and saving up; they can obtain a scholarship; they can take out education loans; or they can work part-time as they study. Reason draws a line at the first tertiary degree.: at [10].
5 The Husband may lavish on the children if he wishes, but not at the expense of the Wife; her obligations end at the basic level the law thinks reasonable.: at [11].
6 The assessment of a party’s earning capacity must apply equally to the Husband’s decision to work for salary that was only a fraction of what he could have been earning in Singapore if he had continued on in his normal employment.: at [14].
The full text of the decision can be found here.
This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.
2024/10/07
Share this page:
