BMJ v BMK: Division of Matrimonial Assets and Child Custody Dispute

In the divorce case of *BMJ v BMK*, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Tan Siong Thye JC, addressed ancillary matters including care and control of the children, maintenance for the children and wife, and division of matrimonial assets. The court granted joint custody to both parents but awarded sole care and control to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay monthly maintenance for the children and a nominal maintenance for the wife. The court also outlined the division of matrimonial assets, including the transfer of properties between the parties. The judgment was delivered on 2014-01-14.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orders made for joint custody, sole care and control to the wife, child maintenance, nominal wife maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Divorce case concerning division of matrimonial assets, child custody, and maintenance. The court granted the wife sole care and control of the children.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BMJPlaintiffIndividualCare and control grantedWon
BMKDefendantIndividualJoint custody grantedPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Looi Wan HuiGateway Law Corporation
Shalini MoganGateway Law Corporation
Suppiah T PaulAPL Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff-wife and defendant-husband were married on 25 October 2000.
  2. The couple has two sons, aged 11 and 6.
  3. The husband moved out of the matrimonial home in October 2010.
  4. The wife filed for divorce on the ground of the husband’s adultery.
  5. The husband counter-filed for divorce on the ground of the wife’s unreasonable behaviour.
  6. The wife sought sole care and control of the children, while the husband sought the converse.
  7. The husband did not make full and frank disclosure of his assets.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BMJ v BMK, DT 5158 of 2010, [2014] SGHC 14

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff-wife and defendant-husband were married.
The husband moved out of the matrimonial home.
The wife filed for divorce on the ground of the husband’s adultery.
Interim judgment was granted.
The wife applied to the Family Court for interim care and control of the two children.
The Family Court made interim orders regarding custody and access.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Care and Control of Children
    • Outcome: The court granted sole care and control of the children to the wife, emphasizing the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 3 SLR(R) 690
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 135
      • [1997] 3 SLR(R) 430
      • [2010] SGHC 255
  2. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court ordered a division of matrimonial assets, with the wife receiving 47.6% and the husband 52.4%, taking into account direct and indirect contributions, non-disclosure of assets, and the need for a stable environment for the children.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 75
      • [2013] 2 SLR 324
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743
      • [2013] 1 SLR 476
  3. Maintenance of Children
    • Outcome: The court ordered the husband to pay $4000 monthly in maintenance for the children.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Maintenance of Wife
    • Outcome: The court granted the wife a nominal maintenance order of $1 per month.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Drawing of Adverse Inferences
    • Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference against the husband due to his evasiveness and failure to fully disclose assets.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] SGCA 21

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Divorce
  2. Care and Control of Children
  3. Maintenance for Children
  4. Maintenance for Wife
  5. Division of Matrimonial Assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Divorce
  • Adultery
  • Unreasonable Behaviour

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Litigation
  • Child Custody Disputes
  • Matrimonial Asset Division

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
CX v CY (minor: custody and access)High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 690SingaporeCited regarding the circumstances in which sole custody orders are made, specifically involving abuse of the child.
IW v IXCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 135SingaporeCited for the principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody cases and that welfare should be given its widest meaning.
Tan Siew Kee v Chua Ah BoeyHigh CourtYes[1987] SLR(R) 725SingaporeCited for the definition of 'welfare' in the context of child custody, encompassing the child's general well-being, upbringing, happiness, comfort, and security.
Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che ChyeCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 430SingaporeCited regarding the importance of the bond between a natural mother and her child in custody decisions.
ALJ v ALKHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 255SingaporeCited for the principle that stability in the lives of children is important and that changes in environment should be avoided unless there are significant advantages.
NI v NJHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 75SingaporeCited for the principle that the division of matrimonial assets should be approached with latitude and sound discretion, considering all relevant circumstances.
BCB v BCCCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 324SingaporeCited for reaffirming the broad-brush approach to the division of matrimonial assets, emphasizing flexibility and a just outcome.
Soh Chan Soon v Tan Choon YockHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 204SingaporeCited to support the broad-brush approach to division of matrimonial assets.
NK v NLCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 743SingaporeCited for the principle that a broad-based approach avoids a fruitless mechanistic accounting procedure in dividing matrimonial assets and for the approach to take when there is non-disclosure of assets.
AYQ v AYRCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the principle that indirect contributions should be quantified with the full benefit of hindsight and in a broad manner and that assets acquired during the marriage are to be considered matrimonial property.
Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock ChyeCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 520SingaporeCited to support the broad-brush approach to division of matrimonial assets.
Koh Bee Choo v Choo Chai HuahCourt of AppealYes[2007] SGCA 21SingaporeCited for the legal principles on drawing adverse inferences in court, requiring a substratum of evidence and access to information.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) Section 125Singapore
Women’s Charter Section 69(4)Singapore
Women’s Charter Section 113Singapore
Women’s Charter Section 112(1)Singapore
Women’s Charter Section 112(2)Singapore
Women’s Charter Section 112(10)Singapore
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 36)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Care and Control
  • Joint Custody
  • Maintenance
  • Adverse Inference
  • Broad-Brush Approach
  • Interim Orders
  • Earning Capacity
  • Indirect Contributions
  • Paramount Consideration
  • Welfare of the Child

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Child Custody
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Singapore
  • Family Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Child Custody95
Family Law95
Divorce90
Children's Welfare90
Matrimonial Assets90
Division of Assets90
Matrimonial Assets Division90
Child Support90
Maintenance85

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Child Custody
  • Matrimonial Assets