XFN v XFO [2025] SGHCF 29

Facts

1          The parties were married in 2012. The interim judgment was granted in December 2023 on the Wife’s application. The District Judge who heard the ancillary matters proceedings had determined that parties’ indirect contributions were 60-40 in the Husband’s favour and ordered only nominal maintenance of $1 to the Wife to preserve her right to apply for maintenance in the future. The Wife appealed.

Court’s Decision:

2          While the Husband had been the sole caregiver of the child after August 2018, and the Wife did not participate at all, this was because the Husband had directly prevented the Wife from doing so by denying the Wife access to the child. The Husband cannot rely on his own misconduct to claim a greater share of indirect contributions.: at [13].

3          The Husband had refused to add the Wife’s name to the title of the matrimonial flat despite her willingness to service the mortgage loan. He also induced HDB to acquire the flat and deprived the Wife of the higher proceeds that an open market sale would have yielded.: at [14].

4          A negative value of 10% was ascribed to the Husband’s indirect contributions flowing from his misconduct, which may not have amounted to a criminal act but warranted the 10% adjustment nonetheless.: at [15], [17].

The full text of the decision can be found here.

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.