House-hubby wants money, not kids
By Crystal Chan
September 29, 2008 Print Ready Email Article
SHE earned $2.5 million in eight years while her husband could barely hold down a job.
She was so flush with cash that when her company posted her to Hong Kong in 2004, she handed her husband $700,000 for housekeeping allowance.
But her husband used the money to buy an apartment in Taiwan for his extra-marital trysts with a Taiwanese woman.
A bitter divorce followed, with the husband seeking a bigger share of his wife's assets.
The Singapore couple parted ways after 22 years of marriage.
While the husband, 45, did not seek custody of their three children, he wanted at least half their matrimonial properties.
The couple's assets include a private property and a condominium unit worth about $2m and a Volvo S80.
The man is a cafe employee while the wife, 44, owns a consumer research company, having worked 20 years in that line.
Their eldest child, 20, will go to university next year.
At the time she was posted to Hong Kong in 2004, the wife's monthly salary was $22,000.
After she set up her own firm in September 2005, she took a substantial pay cut and now earns $8,000 a month.
The judgment did not say why the wife chose to leave her job.
Even before her career peaked, she had saved a substantial amount of money, including the $700,000 which came from liquidating some unit trust investments. Her husband, on the other hand, was a full-time homemaker who tended to their three children.
He had dabbled in ventures like opening a restaurant and a ladies' fashion boutique but both were short-lived.
By the time the wife went to Hong Kong, the couple had grown apart.
A recent Family Court judgment showed the husband had accused his wife of being unfaithful while she discovered his liaison in 2005.
The husband initiated the divorce but the reasons for the split were not stated in the judgment.
Adding fuel to fire was the fact that the Taiwan apartment was bought with a credit loan facility that the husband obtained with the $700,000 he got from his wife.
His ex-wife also accused him of moving more than $120,000 from their joint account into his sole accounts.
Though he had stayed at home as a house-husband, he is now barely on talking terms with his children.
Counsellors who interviewed the children reported that their father did not do more than household chores and take them to school.
He never attended parent-teacher meetings.
Although the wife was overseas for four years, she would call the children several times a day. Even the children's private tutors were hired by their mother.
The husband, who claimed that their matrimonial home was bought with a $155,000 loan from his mother, wanted a 50 per cent share of the property.
The wife, however, felt the whole property should go to her. She also wanted a monthly maintenance of $1,500 for their children.
She said she had contributed more than $250,000 from her CPF to the house while her husband had contributed only about $65,000.
The wife added that she had solely financed the housing loan and the monthly payment averaged about $6,400.
There was also a condominium unit that they bought in 1993 as an investment, and the family car. The apartment had been rented out, with the lease expiring in November.
The wife said the mortgage was financed from her own money and the rental proceeds.
No maintenance
The husband did not want to pay maintenance for the children, saying he earned only $2,850 a month and was in poor health because of diabetes.
But the wife pointed out that he could still afford to spend $1,500 a month on maintaining their car.
District Judge May Loh ruled that the wife deserved 70 per cent of the properties as it was her success that enabled the couple to buy them.
She wrote in her judgment: 'I find it hard to accept that he had 'given up' a career to be a homemaker.
'The truth was more likely that the husband had difficulty holding down a job and found it convenient to rely on the wife's stronger earning capacity to maintain himself and the household.'
Among other things, the judge ordered him to pay 30 per cent of his children's living expenses, which amount to $4,500 a month.
If he can't pay up, the amount will be deducted from the proceeds of their matrimonial properties.
By Crystal Chan
September 29, 2008 Print Ready Email Article
SHE earned $2.5 million in eight years while her husband could barely hold down a job.
She was so flush with cash that when her company posted her to Hong Kong in 2004, she handed her husband $700,000 for housekeeping allowance.
But her husband used the money to buy an apartment in Taiwan for his extra-marital trysts with a Taiwanese woman.
A bitter divorce followed, with the husband seeking a bigger share of his wife's assets.
The Singapore couple parted ways after 22 years of marriage.
While the husband, 45, did not seek custody of their three children, he wanted at least half their matrimonial properties.
The couple's assets include a private property and a condominium unit worth about $2m and a Volvo S80.
The man is a cafe employee while the wife, 44, owns a consumer research company, having worked 20 years in that line.
Their eldest child, 20, will go to university next year.
At the time she was posted to Hong Kong in 2004, the wife's monthly salary was $22,000.
After she set up her own firm in September 2005, she took a substantial pay cut and now earns $8,000 a month.
The judgment did not say why the wife chose to leave her job.
Even before her career peaked, she had saved a substantial amount of money, including the $700,000 which came from liquidating some unit trust investments. Her husband, on the other hand, was a full-time homemaker who tended to their three children.
He had dabbled in ventures like opening a restaurant and a ladies' fashion boutique but both were short-lived.
By the time the wife went to Hong Kong, the couple had grown apart.
A recent Family Court judgment showed the husband had accused his wife of being unfaithful while she discovered his liaison in 2005.
The husband initiated the divorce but the reasons for the split were not stated in the judgment.
Adding fuel to fire was the fact that the Taiwan apartment was bought with a credit loan facility that the husband obtained with the $700,000 he got from his wife.
His ex-wife also accused him of moving more than $120,000 from their joint account into his sole accounts.
Though he had stayed at home as a house-husband, he is now barely on talking terms with his children.
Counsellors who interviewed the children reported that their father did not do more than household chores and take them to school.
He never attended parent-teacher meetings.
Although the wife was overseas for four years, she would call the children several times a day. Even the children's private tutors were hired by their mother.
The husband, who claimed that their matrimonial home was bought with a $155,000 loan from his mother, wanted a 50 per cent share of the property.
The wife, however, felt the whole property should go to her. She also wanted a monthly maintenance of $1,500 for their children.
She said she had contributed more than $250,000 from her CPF to the house while her husband had contributed only about $65,000.
The wife added that she had solely financed the housing loan and the monthly payment averaged about $6,400.
There was also a condominium unit that they bought in 1993 as an investment, and the family car. The apartment had been rented out, with the lease expiring in November.
The wife said the mortgage was financed from her own money and the rental proceeds.
No maintenance
The husband did not want to pay maintenance for the children, saying he earned only $2,850 a month and was in poor health because of diabetes.
But the wife pointed out that he could still afford to spend $1,500 a month on maintaining their car.
District Judge May Loh ruled that the wife deserved 70 per cent of the properties as it was her success that enabled the couple to buy them.
She wrote in her judgment: 'I find it hard to accept that he had 'given up' a career to be a homemaker.
'The truth was more likely that the husband had difficulty holding down a job and found it convenient to rely on the wife's stronger earning capacity to maintain himself and the household.'
Among other things, the judge ordered him to pay 30 per cent of his children's living expenses, which amount to $4,500 a month.
If he can't pay up, the amount will be deducted from the proceeds of their matrimonial properties.
Be a man lar, don't need to live like a piece of shit.... If you have a wife to feed you and your kids, then you should treasure more and live like a MAN !!!.... Want to have affair also wipe your fxxking mouth... now you have lost your main stream of income and you need to pay for your foolish actions.... The man also want to put fault on his wife to get more $$$ ?!?!... Such a disgrace...
