- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,177
- Points
- 48
A DIVORCEE who appealed for more maintenance from her former husband after she was diagnosed with breast cancer has had her case dismissed by Singapore's apex court.
The 51-year-old aesthetics doctor was receiving $1 a month following a High Court ruling in March.
She went to the Court of Appeal to ask for this monthly sum to be raised to $2,000, and filed additional evidence relating to her recent diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer.
This included medical certification, copies of medical receipts and a summary of her clinic's sales between March and September.
The husband's lawyer Imran Hamid Khwaja told an earlier hearing his client did not object to this new evidence, but would make submissions with regard to it. He also argued that the new evidence did not disclose any significant drop in the woman's income. But he was prepared to concede that with sufficient evidence, she would be entitled to apply for a variation of the current maintenance order.
The couple were married in 1986, and divorced in 2009. They have two children.
In a judgment dated Nov 5, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The 16-page document noted that the woman's lawyer, Mr Issac Tito Shane, was unable to explain to the court's satisfaction how he had arrived at the $2,000 figure. Added Justice Andrew Phang in the judgment: "This merely underscored Mr Imran's argument to the effect that there was really insufficient evidence before this court to enable it to arrive at a principled decision."
The Court of Appeal also comprises Justice Chao Hick Tin and then-Justice Sundaresh Menon, who assumed the role of Chief Justice on Tuesday.
The apex court was also of the view that the most appropriate action was Mr Imran's proposal - that the woman apply for a variation of this particular maintenance order.
In the light of the "unfortunate illness", the court urged both parties to try their level best to arrive at a mutually agreeable arrangement.
The woman's appeal also dealt with issues of the division of matrimonial assets and whether her 40 per cent contribution to the children's maintenance should be lowered. The Court of Appeal also upheld the High Court's decisions on these issues.
But on the first issue, it varied the percentage of indirect contributions by the woman which it felt ought to be allotted a 30 per cent weighting in three asset classes. These were the net sales proceeds of the matrimonial home, the husband's share of proceeds from the sale of an Australian house, and other matrimonial assets.
[email protected]
The 51-year-old aesthetics doctor was receiving $1 a month following a High Court ruling in March.
She went to the Court of Appeal to ask for this monthly sum to be raised to $2,000, and filed additional evidence relating to her recent diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer.
This included medical certification, copies of medical receipts and a summary of her clinic's sales between March and September.
The husband's lawyer Imran Hamid Khwaja told an earlier hearing his client did not object to this new evidence, but would make submissions with regard to it. He also argued that the new evidence did not disclose any significant drop in the woman's income. But he was prepared to concede that with sufficient evidence, she would be entitled to apply for a variation of the current maintenance order.
The couple were married in 1986, and divorced in 2009. They have two children.
In a judgment dated Nov 5, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The 16-page document noted that the woman's lawyer, Mr Issac Tito Shane, was unable to explain to the court's satisfaction how he had arrived at the $2,000 figure. Added Justice Andrew Phang in the judgment: "This merely underscored Mr Imran's argument to the effect that there was really insufficient evidence before this court to enable it to arrive at a principled decision."
The Court of Appeal also comprises Justice Chao Hick Tin and then-Justice Sundaresh Menon, who assumed the role of Chief Justice on Tuesday.
The apex court was also of the view that the most appropriate action was Mr Imran's proposal - that the woman apply for a variation of this particular maintenance order.
In the light of the "unfortunate illness", the court urged both parties to try their level best to arrive at a mutually agreeable arrangement.
The woman's appeal also dealt with issues of the division of matrimonial assets and whether her 40 per cent contribution to the children's maintenance should be lowered. The Court of Appeal also upheld the High Court's decisions on these issues.
But on the first issue, it varied the percentage of indirect contributions by the woman which it felt ought to be allotted a 30 per cent weighting in three asset classes. These were the net sales proceeds of the matrimonial home, the husband's share of proceeds from the sale of an Australian house, and other matrimonial assets.
[email protected]
Last edited:
