Evrol Mariette Peters J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]This was the Petitioner-Wife’s petition for divorce, maintenance for herself and two children, equal division of matrimonial assets, and damages from the Co-Respondent; whilst the Respondent-Husband cross-petitioned for divorce, specific monetary claims pursuant to a marital agreement, and the return of monies and jewellery.

[2]Given the privacy of parties and sensitivity of issues in these proceedings, the Petitioner, Respondent, and Co-Respondent have been anonymised respectively as HLC, PTL, and GEN.

The factual background

[3]The Petitioner, a Singaporean citizen, and Respondent, a Malaysian (collectively “the Parties”), were aged 54 and 62, respectively at the time of the hearing of the divorce petition. Their marriage was registered in July 1997. Notably, at the time of their marriage, the Petitioner was already a mother to a two-year-old (“TIF”), from her previous marriage.

[4]The Parties had five children together, comprising three sons aged 26, 25, and 18 respectively, and two daughters aged 23 and 21. Notably their eldest child, WYL, has special needs.

[5]Except for WYL, TIF, and the other Children (collectively “the Children”) testified in favour of the Petitioner. TIF testified as SP3, while the Parties’ two sons, aged 25 and 18 testified respectively as SP5 and SP4. Additionally, their daughters, aged 23 and 21, testified on behalf of the Petitioner, respectively as SP1 and SP2.

[6]In October 2020, citing adultery and unreasonable behaviour, the Petitioner left the matrimonial home with the Children, and relocated to an apartment at Plaza Berjaya (“the Plaza Berjaya Apartment”), which was registered in the names of the Respondent and his business partner, Lim Bee Suan.

[7]Subsequently, in January 2021, the Petitioner initiated divorce proceedings, amending her divorce petition in November 2022 (“the Divorce Petition”). In response, the Respondent, in December 2022, filed his reply to the amended Divorce Petition.

The issues

[8]The issues that had to be addressed by this Court were as follows:

(a)Whether a marital agreement dated 9 August 1997 entered into between the Parties, was valid and binding;

(b)Spousal Maintenance – In the deliberation of whether spousal maintenance should be awarded, it was imperative to consider the following issues:

(i)Whether the breakdown of the marriage was due to adultery between the Respondent and Co- Respondent, and even if it was, whether the Petitioner had found such adultery intolerable;

(ii)Whether breakdown of the marriage was due to the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour, in the form of abuse towards the Petitioner and the Children, and sexual abuse towards the Parties’ daughters;

(iii)Whether breakdown of the marriage was due to the Petitioner’s unreasonable behaviour, in the form of alcoholism; and

(iv)Whether the Petitioner had fulfilled the ‘means and needs’ test to justify her claim to lumpsum/ monthly maintenance;

(c)Child Maintenance – Whether the Respondent was obligated to maintain two of the Parties’ children, namely WYL who is their special needs child, and SP4 who was 18 years old at the time of the hearing of the Divorce Petition, and still studying.

(d)Child Access – Whether the Respondent was entitled to have access to WYL.

(e)The Matrimonial Assets – With regard to the matrimonial assets, the issue was whether the Petitioner was entitled to equal division of all the matrimonial assets, which included the matrimonial home; other immoveable properties; monies in fixed deposit bank accounts, and the Respondent’s Employees Provident Fund (“EPF”); and the Respondent’s shares in several companies. In addition, whether the Petitioner was entitled to the Porsche which belonged to the Respondent.

[9]The divorce was granted and the decree nisi was made absolute immediately. The Respondent was ordered to pay spousal and child maintenance, and the matrimonial assets were divided accordingly between the Petitioner and Respondent. No d