‘Hardly reasonable’: Court rejects woman’s request for S$600 monthly maintenance from husband mid-divorce

SINGAPORE: A family court has rejected a woman’s bid to get monthly maintenance of S$600 (US$460) from her husband pending the resolution of their divorce.
The woman claimed that she was unemployed, had to provide for her two children in university and depended on her husband’s financial support.
Parties were not named, as is usual in such proceedings.
In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Sep 11), District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng rejected her request.
He noted that the woman had sold S$300,000 of the securities she owned, transferring S$120,000 of the proceeds to her children.
She cited monthly expenses of S$5,040, which included “generous estimates” for food and groceries totalling S$2,200, apparel and grooming totalling S$450, S$1,270 for travel and entertainment, and an allowance of S$400 for her parents.
“The receipts that the wife exhibited in support of these claims revealed a lifestyle of dining at restaurants to the tune of S$100 to S$200 each week and an affinity for tableware that cost up to S$552 for a set of a food tray and teacups,” said Judge Tay.
“By the admission of the wife, these expenses were ‘extravagant for someone in (her) position’.”
The woman had argued that she had to support her two children who were studying in university in Singapore.
However, the judge noted that she did not provide any breakdown or estimate of the amount she had to spend to support them.
She also did not dispute that her husband had been maintaining each child for S$800 monthly.
“There was little objective evidence that the reasonable expenses of either child exceeded this sum,” said Judge Tay. “This left little need for the wife to expend her financial resources on the children.”
He also noted that the woman had transferred the S$120,000 to her children after commencing the proceedings to seek maintenance.
With this sum, the woman could have supported herself for 200 months, based on the monthly maintenance of S$600 she was seeking.
“Given the willingness of the wife to give such a large sum to the children when she had little need to do so and when the children had not made any demand for such a sum, it was difficult to see how the wife needed any interim maintenance to tide her through the resolution of the divorce,” said Judge Tay.
He also noted that the woman was “not without financial resources” even though she was unemployed.
“By her own estimate, she owned up to S$500,000 of securities at least … until October 2023, which was four months after she commenced her claim for interim maintenance,” said Judge Tay.
He said there was “no justification” to order the husband to provide interim maintenance for the woman.
Judge Tay said “the touchstone for an assessment of maintenance is that of reasonableness”.
“On the facts, the wife could reasonably maintain herself with her own financial resources,” he said. 
“Further, it was hardly reasonable for her to disenfranchise herself of $120,000, or 200 months of interim maintenance, after commencing these proceedings and when she had no necessity for doing so.
“It was thus unjustified to have the husband maintain her further.”