The court held that assets acquired before marriage can be deemed matrimonial properties subject to division if used as family homes, and children's welfare prevails in custody decisions.

JUDGEMENT

Raihanah Halid:

Introduction

[1] This matter concerns the plaintiff-wife's application for a divorce from the defendant-husband. The wife ("the Wife") was represented while the husband ("the Husband") represented himself. The first hearing was held on 28 September 2020 where the Court heard both parties' submissions. The Court could not accept the documents made by the Wife's parents exhibited in her affidavit and granted leave for them to file affidavits of witnesses as the matter was related to the matrimonial flat. Husband agreed to pronounce the talak on that date, and having been convinced that there was no previous talak, the Court confirmed and recorded the talak. After interviewing the children, the Court adjourned the hearing to 16 November 2020. On that date, the Court made its final orders. The Husband filed a notice of his intention to appeal against parts of the order related to the care and control of the children and the division of the matrimonial flat.

Marriage Of Parties

[2] The parties were married on 17 July 2004 in Singapore. The Husband is a Singaporean and the Wife an Indonesian citizen with permanent residency in Singapore. They are blessed with two children, the oldest is a boy, 15 years old, and the younger one, a daughter aged 9. The Wife mentioned the grounds of divorce to be the physical, oral, psychological and emotional abuse by the Husband before a Personal Protection Order was issued on 23 November 2017. She also cited the Husband not being able to maintain the family financially, and the absence of najkah batin. The Husband cited the Wife's extramarital affairs and her act of leaving the matrimonial flat as the reasons for the breakdown of their marriage.

Custody And Care And Control Of Children

[3] Both parties prayed for custody to be joint [although the Wife asked for sole custody in her Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief ("AEIC"), she did not file an amended Case Statement], and the Court ordered the same. In terms of care and control, both prayed to be granted care and control of the children. The Wife acknowledged that she was no longer staying with the children since she was living in a rental unit arranged by social services, which had no room for children. However, she averred that they see her after school every day and return to the Husband to sleep at night. She argued that she has been their primary caregiver since they were born. She has also alleged the Husband to have "gay" tendencies and argued that it is not in the children's interests to be living with him and exposed to this lifestyle. The Husband's account is that she left the matrimonial flat because she was having an affair with a third party. The children have continued living with him and his mother at the matrimonial flat since the Wife left, after a short period of living with the mother. He averred that the Wife only spent weekdays with the children during times that were convenient for her and not every day as claimed by her. He has also been the one who paid for all the children's expenses and the family's expenses.

[4] The Husband provided a different account from the Wife of the circumstances leading up to the police report and subsequent Personal Protection Order dated 23 November 2017. [Her account is stated in para 5.11(a) of her AEIC and the Husband's version is at p 4 of his Affidavit-in-Reply. Notwithstanding, he acknowledged that he had slapped and pushed her.] He also corroborated her account that the children had moved out with her at the initial stage, but then returned to live with him at the matrimonial flat. [They only differed on the frequency of the children staying overnight with the Wife.]

[5] The law with regard to determining custody and care and control of children is the welfare and interests of the child. This includes the child's bond with their preferred parent, determined by an interview by the Court. The Court's decision of interviewing child is an established practice rooted in Islamic la