- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,070
- Points
- 0
A 40-year-old man in Singapore has refused to pay the $1 maintenance fee that the court awarded to his wife after their separation.
According to a Shin Min Daily report, the wife is three years older than him, and has a monthly salary of over $10,000. The husband earns $5,000 per month.
Court files indicate that the wife's total assets are valued at $62 million, while the husband's assets total $25 million.
However, the husband has a monthly debt of $1,850 to pay off and has less than $100 in his bank account.
As the wife's financial situation is better than his, the man has refused to pay even the $1 token sum awarded to her, the court files said.
The judge presiding over the case said he felt the wife was entitled to a divorce compensation as she had made significant contributions to the family over the course of their 17 years of marriage.
She told the court that he racked up debts within the first few years of their marriage and caused hardship to the entire family.
She claimed that her husband ran up debts of up to $10 million, and she has helped him pay off $3 million of his car installments and recreational fees. In addition, she has had to take on the majority share of their household expenses.
The husband has proposed to sell off the flat and share the gains equally, to be deposited into their respective Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts.
He said this is so that he can afford to buy a house after the divorce.
However, the proposal was rejected by the wife. Citing her previous contributions to the family, which includes forking out $200,000 in house renovation costs, previous hospital stays and upkeep fees for their children, she said she feels she is entitled to the whole property.
She also said that she wants to keep the house as it is nearer to her parents' place and keeping it would be in the interests of the well being and security of their children in the long run.
The couple has three daughters, aged 12, eight and five-years-old.
The eldest is in primary six this year, and the wife feels that selling of the house would affect her studies.
The court announced in its final decision that for the sake of the children, the wife and her kids should be allowed to continue to live in the house. The wife has also been ordered to return $13,000 of the husband's investment into the property into his CPF account.
According to a Shin Min Daily report, the wife is three years older than him, and has a monthly salary of over $10,000. The husband earns $5,000 per month.
Court files indicate that the wife's total assets are valued at $62 million, while the husband's assets total $25 million.
However, the husband has a monthly debt of $1,850 to pay off and has less than $100 in his bank account.
As the wife's financial situation is better than his, the man has refused to pay even the $1 token sum awarded to her, the court files said.
The judge presiding over the case said he felt the wife was entitled to a divorce compensation as she had made significant contributions to the family over the course of their 17 years of marriage.
She told the court that he racked up debts within the first few years of their marriage and caused hardship to the entire family.
She claimed that her husband ran up debts of up to $10 million, and she has helped him pay off $3 million of his car installments and recreational fees. In addition, she has had to take on the majority share of their household expenses.
The husband has proposed to sell off the flat and share the gains equally, to be deposited into their respective Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts.
He said this is so that he can afford to buy a house after the divorce.
However, the proposal was rejected by the wife. Citing her previous contributions to the family, which includes forking out $200,000 in house renovation costs, previous hospital stays and upkeep fees for their children, she said she feels she is entitled to the whole property.
She also said that she wants to keep the house as it is nearer to her parents' place and keeping it would be in the interests of the well being and security of their children in the long run.
The couple has three daughters, aged 12, eight and five-years-old.
The eldest is in primary six this year, and the wife feels that selling of the house would affect her studies.
The court announced in its final decision that for the sake of the children, the wife and her kids should be allowed to continue to live in the house. The wife has also been ordered to return $13,000 of the husband's investment into the property into his CPF account.
