JUDGMENT

Chan Sek Keong J:

This is an application made on 4 June 1987 by the petitioner to revoke an agreement dated 20 March 1982 ("the agreement") entered into between the petitioner and the respondent setting out the financial arrangements between them in the divorce proceedings.

Under Clause 1 of the agreement, the petitioner agreed to (and did) pay a capital sum of $150,000 in instalments to the respondent (60%) and their daughter (40%) who was born on 28 December 1965.

Under Clause 2 of the agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay the respondent until she remarries and the daughter until she marries the following:

(a) the monthly sum of $3,500 and $1,500 respectively, tax free;

(b) all medical and dental expenses, including costs of hospitalisation;

(c) all monthly outgoings in respect of the respondent's flat known as No. 19E Grange Heights, Singapore;

(d) all food and other household provisions not exceeding $1000 pm;

(e) all monthly instalments payable in respect of a car ER 8790X and the costs of maintaining it, including the cost of employing a driver "provided that when the car is sold by the husband to purchase another in substitution, the proceeds of the sale shall belong to the husband and that the car to be so purchased in substitution shall be of comparative standard";

(f) all premiums payable in respect of two policies of Life Insurance Nos. 6222207 and 497954;

(g) the school/college expenses of the daughter and if she shows a potentiality for university education to support and maintain her in respect thereof;

(h) the policy of Life Insurance No. 225976 to be assigned to the wife and daughter;

(i) the respondent's legal fees in connection with the divorce proceedings agreed at $5000.

Under Clause 5 of the agreement, the respondent agreed to support, maintain and educate the daughter according to her status in life and also to pay for her university education.

The petitioner's application is based on the ground that he was "financially stretched". He has alleged that at the time he signed the agreement, his business was doing well but since then he had suffered setbacks and that his company Rimaco (Pte) Ltd. was in dire financial straits. The financial position of the petitioner at the date of hearing of this application, on the basis of his affidavits, may be summarised as follows:

(1) $857,690.70 due to Citibank as at 24 May 1987 secured by a mortgage on No. 2 Saraca Hill, Singapore;

(2) $642,023.85 due to Deutsche Bank, $160,000 due to the developer in respect of No. 10-06, Faber Garden, Singapore;

(3) $190,000 due to CPF and $305,00 due to Citibank, secured by mortgages on No. 11 Chestnut Cresent, Singapore;

(4) $49,887.87 due from Rimaco to Jurong Town Corporation for arrears of rent;

(5) $30,425.70 due to Forward Overseas Credit Ltd. being arrears of instalments (payable by Urban Buildmat Pte Ltd., another of his private company);

(6) $3,108.90 to Teck Leong Hardware Pte Ltd. by way of judgment debt (payable by Rimaco Pte Ltd);

(7) $2,903,832 to Deutsche Bank (by Rimaco Pte Ltd);

(8) $118,858 to Forward Oversea Credit (payable by Urban Buildmat Pte Ltd);

(9) CPF contributions to some employees for certain months in 1985 and 1986;

(10) $24,439.30 to the Comptroller of Income Tax being the balance payable for the Y/A 1985 assessment of $69,457.60 and also $29,595 for Y/A 1986.

(11) $6,426.37 due to Diners Club at 9 December 1987;

(12) $4,139.84 due to Carte Blanch at 3 December 1987;

(13) $16,805.75 due to American Express at 9 October 1987.

The petitioner has also produced evidence that (a) the 3 credit cards mentioned above have been cancelled; (b) that he had not been able to pay his tax arrears amounting to $51,629.13 in October 1987 and (c) that receivers and managers were appointed in respect of Rimaco on 16 October 1987.

The petitioner has also produced evidence that his daughter had been extravagant in her use of his credit cards whilst studying in London from 1985 to 1987. This spending, which f