VPX v VPY: Appeal on Child Maintenance Order - Guardianship of Infants Act
In VPX v VPY, the appellant wife appealed to the High Court (Family Division) against the District Judge's decision regarding child maintenance. The District Judge ordered the respondent husband to pay S$2,500.00 per month for their child, effective December 1, 2020. The High Court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, upheld the District Judge's order, finding no error in the assessment of the child's expenses or the apportionment of maintenance between the parents.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a District Judge's order for child maintenance under the Guardianship of Infants Act. The High Court upheld the order, requiring the husband to pay S$2,500 monthly.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VPX | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Cheong Zhihui Ivan, Ho Jin Kit Shaun |
| VPY | Respondent | Individual | Judgment upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Cheong Zhihui Ivan | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
| Ho Jin Kit Shaun | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- The parties are citizens of the United States and were married in Nevada in May 2007.
- The parties' son was born in September 2007.
- The parties' marriage was annulled in Nevada on 23 September 2008.
- The wife and child moved to Texas in November 2007.
- The wife moved to Singapore in June 2015 and brought the child in January 2016.
- The wife filed an Originating Summons under the Guardianship of Infants Act on 16 June 2020.
- The District Judge ordered the husband to pay S$2,500.00 per month for the child's maintenance.
5. Formal Citations
- VPX v VPY, District Court Appeal No 121 of 2020, [2021] SGHCF 13
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties married in Nevada | |
| Child born | |
| Wife and child moved to Texas | |
| Parties' marriage annulled in Nevada | |
| Husband filed a guardianship application for the child | |
| Texas Court made interim orders concerning the child | |
| Texas Court dismissed the husband’s application | |
| Wife moved to Singapore | |
| Wife brought the child to Singapore | |
| Wife filed an Originating Summons under the Guardianship of Infants Act | |
| Wife was granted leave to effect service of legal process on the husband in Ohio | |
| Husband was served with the papers | |
| Husband to pay monthly maintenance of S$2,500.00 with effect from this date | |
| Grounds of Decision issued by District Judge | |
| Hearing before Choo Han Teck J | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Child Maintenance
- Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's order for the husband to pay S$2,500.00 per month to maintain the child.
- Category: Substantive
- Assessment of Child's Expenses
- Outcome: The court agreed with the District Judge that the wife's claimed monthly maintenance of S$17,390.50 was unreasonable.
- Category: Substantive
- Burden of Proof of Income
- Outcome: The court found that the husband's income is a fact that is disproportionately difficult for the wife to prove, but declined to draw an adverse inference against the husband.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 426
8. Remedies Sought
- Child maintenance
- Joint custody of the child
- Sole care and control of the child to the wife
- Reasonable access for the husband
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for child maintenance under the Guardianship of Infants Act
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Child Support
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VNW v VNX | General Division of the High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2021] SGHCF 1 | Singapore | Cited as a past case where the court accepted one party’s inclusion of the child’s share of the monthly rental expenses in the child’s maintenance. |
| UJP v UJQ | General Division of the High Court (Family Division) | Yes | [2018] SGHCF 9 | Singapore | Cited as a past case where the court accepted one party’s inclusion of the child’s share of the monthly rental expenses in the child’s maintenance. |
| UZN v UZM | High Court | No | [2021] 1 SLR 426 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference may be drawn where there is a substratum of evidence that establishes a prima facie case against the person against whom the inference is to be drawn, and that person must have had some particular access to the information he is said to be hiding. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap 122, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Child maintenance
- Guardianship of Infants Act
- Annulment
- Custody
- Access
- Originating Summons
- District Judge
- High Court
- Biological father
15.2 Keywords
- child maintenance
- family law
- Singapore
- Guardianship of Infants Act
- appeal
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Support
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Child Maintenance
- Guardianship of Infants Act