VXM v VXN: Division of Matrimonial Assets & Wife/Child Maintenance

In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the case of VXM v VXN, heard by Choo Han Teck J on 16 August 2023, concerned the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the Wife and Children following a divorce. The court determined the division of assets, with the Husband receiving $6,011,819.59 and the Wife receiving $5,549,371.93. The court made no maintenance order for the Wife, but ordered the Husband to pay $10,000 a month for the Children’s maintenance, backdated to March 2022.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

No maintenance order for the Wife. The Husband is to pay $10,000 a month for the Children’s maintenance.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Divorce case concerning division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for wife and children. The court determined asset division and child maintenance.

1.7 Decision Date

14 September 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
VXM	Plaintiff	Individual	Partial	Partial	Kee Lay Lian of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Shawn Teo Kai Jie of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
VXN	Defendant	Individual	Partial	Partial	Gill Carrie Kaur of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Foo Siew Fong of Harry Elias Partnership LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kee Lay Lian	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Shawn Teo Kai Jie	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Gill Carrie Kaur	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Foo Siew Fong	Harry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

The Husband is a 45-year-old managing director and deputy chairman of a public listed automobile company.
The Wife is a 39-year-old part-time finance manager for her family’s investment business.
The parties married on 4 June 2011 and filed for divorce in 2020.
The parties have two daughters, aged eight and seven respectively.
The date for ascertaining the pool of assets is the interim judgment date (19 March 2021).
The Husband had concealed other sources of income or undisclosed financial resources.
The Wife is receiving a significant share of the matrimonial assets which amounts to a large sum of $5,549,371.93.

5. Formal Citations

VXM v VXN, Divorce Transferred No 3863 of 2020, [2023] SGHCF 39

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-06-04	Marriage
2020-09-04	Divorce proceedings commenced
2021-03-19	Interim judgement granted
2023-08-16	Ancillary matters hearing
2023-09-15	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court determined the division of matrimonial assets, awarding $6,011,819.59 to the Husband and $5,549,371.93 to the Wife.
- Category: Substantive
Maintenance for Wife
- Outcome: The court made no order for the maintenance of the Wife.
- Category: Substantive
Maintenance for Children
- Outcome: The court ordered the Husband to pay $10,000 a month for the Children’s maintenance.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Division of Matrimonial Assets
Maintenance for Wife
Maintenance for Children

9. Cause of Actions

Divorce

10. Practice Areas

Divorce
Family Law
Matrimonial Law

11. Industries

Automobile
Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
VOD v VOC	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC(A) 6	Singapore	Cited to distinguish the case from the present case, as the gold bar was not intended to be used for the benefit of both parties.
BJS v BJT	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 41	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court is empowered to regard property as a matrimonial asset even if one party did not have legal title at the material time.
Tang Ngai Sheung Peggy v Wong Yeu Yu	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 221	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court is empowered to find property to be a matrimonial asset.
Yeo Gim Tong Michael v Tianzon Lolita	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 633	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court is empowered to find property to be a matrimonial asset.
AJR v AJS	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 617	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a bonus paid after the interim judgment date for work done prior to the interim judgment date is a matrimonial asset.
CLC v CLB	High Court	Yes	[2023] 1 SLR 1260	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court should exclude interspousal gifts from the matrimonial assets if there was an unequivocal intention on the part of the Husband to divest his interest in these assets in favour of the Wife.
USB v USA and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 588	Singapore	Cited for the principle that pre-nuptial assets and gifts from third parties are not matrimonial assets.
UZN v UZM	High Court	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 426	Singapore	Cited for the principle that legal costs of matrimonial proceedings should be returned to the matrimonial assets.
UFU (M.W.) v UFV	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHCF 23	Singapore	Cited for the principle that legal costs of matrimonial proceedings should be returned to the matrimonial assets.
AQT v AQU	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 138	Singapore	Cited for the principle that legal costs of matrimonial proceedings should be returned to the matrimonial assets.
WGE v WFF	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHCF 26	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the proportion of indirect contributions to the marriage should be considered.
Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 195	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference should be drawn against a party who has concealed other sources of income or undisclosed financial resources.
ATE v ATD	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] SGCA 2	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court’s power to order maintenance is supplementary to its power to order a division of matrimonial assets.
Quek Lee Tiam v Ho Kim Swee (alias Ho Kian Guan)	High Court	Yes	[1995] SGHC 23	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party should find gainful employment and earn as much as reasonably possible to contribute to her previous lifestyle and standard of living.
NI v NJ	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 75	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party should find gainful employment and earn as much as reasonably possible to contribute to her previous lifestyle and standard of living.
ATT v ATS	High Court	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 859	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party should find gainful employment and earn as much as reasonably possible to contribute to her previous lifestyle and standard of living.
AUA v ATZ	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 674	Singapore	Cited for the principle that both parents have a shared duty to maintain children.
TIT v TIU	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1137	Singapore	Cited for the principle that both parents have a shared duty to maintain children.
VXM v VXN	Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore	Yes	[2021] SGHCF 42	Singapore	Cited to show that issues concerning the Children have been resolved.
TNL	N/A	Yes	TNL	N/A	Cited for the principle that the court’s power to order maintenance is supplementary to its power to order a division of matrimonial assets.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Matrimonial Assets
Maintenance
Interim Judgment
Direct Contributions
Indirect Contributions
Financial Resources
Earning Capacity

15.2 Keywords

Divorce
Matrimonial Assets
Maintenance
Children
Singapore
Family Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Family Law	95
Matrimonial Assets	95
Division of Matrimonial Property	90
Maintenance	90
Maintenance (Child)	85
Child Support	85
Maintenance (Wife)	85
Children's Welfare	80
Indirect contributions ratio	70
Evidence	60
Financial resources	60
Earning capacity	50
Civil Procedure	30
Breach of Contract	10

16. Subjects

Family Law
Divorce
Matrimonial Assets
Maintenance