News

S’pore Woman Asked for $130k a Month from Ex-Husband As She & Her Kids Are Used to ‘Luxury Lifestyle’

2022-08-21 , 1:54 pm

Is $80,000 a month a reasonable amount of interim maintenance for two children aged five and six?

According to the mother, yes, since the family were used to a luxury lifestyle.

Ex-Husband a Top Executive, Annual Income of Over $1 Million

The ex-husband is apparently a top executive of a company who earns an annual income of over $1 million. Despite suffering a drop in income due to the economic downturn, the court labelled it a “very comfortable financial position”.

The court noted how the father had supported the mother and children well with material comforts like a large home and chauffeured cars. Additionally, the family would routinely follow the husband overseas whenever he had work trips.

Even Asked for Birthday-Related Fees

The mother asked for $50,000 a month for herself, and $80,000 a month for her two children.

Lawyers have noted that while it is common for wives of rich men to ask for a high monthly maintenance fee post-divorce, it is rare for them to ask for such a large sum for their young children. This is especially since their children are only aged five and six.

According to The Straits Times, since the family travelled often, a monthly sum of $80,000 was requested for travel expenses. This included first-class air tickets and other holiday expenses.

The mother also asked for $6,000 monthly for each child, to pay for things like medical, school, and enrichment class fees. Amusingly, a request was also made for the ex-husband to pay each child $2,400 annually for “birthday-related” fees.

However, the court deemed travel expenses unnecessary due to the ongoing pandemic. Instead, they ordered an interim monthly maintenance of $10,000 for each child, and $11,000 for the mother.

Appealed Against Ruling: Wife Withdrew $280k from Joint Account

The ex-husband told his lawyer to appeal against the court’s ruling, arguing that his ex-wife had withdrawn more than $280,000 from their joint account.

He argued that that sum of money would be enough for her and their children while waiting for the outcome of their case, where assets and money will presumably be split.

Additionally, he noted that he was already paying the children’s monthly school fees of over $3,000. Er, what kind of school do five and six-year-old rich kids go to? Two months of their fees could pay for a semester of subsidised university fees.

Following the appeal, High Court Justice Debbie Ong agreed that the husband should not need to pay interim maintenance, especially considering the $280,000 withdrawal.

Justice Ong said that the wife can use the money for “reasonable daily expenses” only, and would have to return the leftover amount back to the joint account.

“The wife should bear in mind that while she and the children may have been accustomed to a certain standard of living prior to the breakdown of the marriage, not everything will remain the same post-divorce.”

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or download the Goody Feed app here: https://goodyfeed.com/app/

$9,500 Rental Home Was Deemed Reasonable

Another point of contention was the $9,500 rental home that the wife chose to stay in, after she left their home with the children in tow.

It is a four-bedroom condominium unit with a private swimming pool, and is in the same development as her parents. The ex-husband argued that $9,500 was excessive, and that she could have chosen a “more reasonable” apartment or simply stayed with her parents.

However, the mother explained that she rented that unit because it was close to her parents and older brother, who all share a close relationship with her children and could help support them during this difficult time.

Additionally, the condominium is within walking distance of the children’s school, as well as near their former home where the husband lives. The condominium unit’s standard is also close to the luxury standards that the children are used to.

Justice Ong supported the woman’s decision, saying that she does not necessarily need to stay with her parents just to save money. The unit was also convenient for everyone, and is close to the children’s support network.

Thus, the court ruled that the wife can rightfully spend from the fund of $280,000 that she withdrew, as long as it is for reasonable expenses. The husband will also have to provide $9,500 for the accommodation expenses of his ex-wife and children.

Shares of their assets and child maintenance fees will be ruled upon later.