1 This appeal involves an application under s.69 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (“WC”) for spousal and children’s maintenance. The Appellant/Father (“Father”) was the respondent in the proceedings before me, and the Respondent/Mother (“Mother”) was the applicant.

2 The Father and Mother (“the Parties”) were married in March 2011 and have three children, C1 born in 2012, C2 born in 2014 and C3 born in 2017 (“the children”).

3 Divorce proceedings were commenced in October 2025, and the Interim Judgment was granted on an uncontested basis in August 2026. The ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in chambers and are currently pending.

4 MSS 2282/2025 was filed by the Mother, under which she sought an order that the Father pay the following monthly sums:

a) $8,000 in cash, apportioned ¹ as follows –

(i) $2,000 for the Mother;

(ii) $2,000 for C1;

(iii) $2,000 for C2; and

(iv) $2,000 for C3.

b) $2,500 in credit card spending ² ; and

c) Certain direct payments ³ , including rent, utilities, cable TV, internet and the home telephone line.

5 The Father disagreed to the sums sought by the Mother, asking that the application be dismissed with costs ⁴ because the Mother’s claim for maintenance for herself and the children had not been made out ⁵ ; she had not discharged the burden of proving neglect or refusal to provide reasonable maintenance ⁶ .

6 I proceeded to hear the Mother’s application and made the following orders ⁷ :

a) The Father is to pay a total of $8,000 per month as maintenance for the Mother and the children. The above-mentioned sum comprises –

(i) $2,000 per month for the Mother;

(ii) $2,000 per month for C1;

(iii) $2,000 per month for C2; and

(iv) $2,000 per month for C3.

b) The above-mentioned maintenance is to be paid on or before the 15th day of each month with effect from 15 October 2025 to the Mother’s designated bank account.

c) The Father shall continue to pay 100% of the following expenses directly –

(i) All insurance premiums for the Mother, C1, C2 and C3.

(ii) All medical and dental expenses for C1, C2 and C3.

(iii) All mobile phone payments for the Mother.

d) Arrears of maintenance, being maintenance from 15 October 2025 to 15 July 2026, was the total sum of $34,500. In the absence of any agreement between the parties, the following payment schedule shall apply:

(i) The sum of $8,000 shall be paid by the Father to the Mother by 20 July 2026.

(ii) The sum of $6,500 shall be paid by the Father to the Mother by 31 July 2026.

(iii) The remaining sum of $20,000 shall be paid by the Father to the Mother in four (4) equal monthly instalments of $5,000 per month, with effect from 15 August 2026, on top of the current maintenance, until the arrears are fully paid.

7 I now move on to the issues arising in this appeal.

8 Notwithstanding the Father’s initial objections on the orders sought by the Mother, his dissatisfaction lay with only parts of my decision ⁸ relating to arrears of maintenance of $34,500, being maintenance from 15 October 2025 to 15 July 2026.

9 I now provide the reasons for my decision.

10 Parties were both represented by counsel in the proceedings before me and relied on the following affidavits and submissions for the hearing:

a) The Mother’s Affidavit filed on 24 December 2025 (“M1”);

b) The Mother’s Affidavit filed on 14 April 2026 (“M2”);

c) The Mother’s written submissions filed on 4 May 2026 (“Mother’s WS”);

d) The Father’s Affidavit filed on 24 December 2025 (“F1”);

e) The Father’s Affidavit filed on 14 April 2026 (“F2”); and

f) The Father’s written submissions filed on 6 May 2026 (“Father’s WS”).

11 I move on to the applicable law.

12 The court’s powers to make an order for maintenance can be found in section 69 of the WC which reads:

13 Section 69(4) of the WC sets out the relevant considerations which the court must consider in making any orders under s.69(2):

14 I move to the Parties’ cases.

15 The following was not disputed:

a) The Father had been, and continues to be, the sole breadwinner of the family; the basis of his objection to the Mother’s application had also never been one of affordability.

b) In the years preceding August 2025, the Father transferred $8,000 per month to the Mother to cover the Mother’s personal expenses, the helper’s salary and related expenses, and some household expenses such as groceries and dining. The Mother also had access to credit cards paid for by the Father.

c) The payments of $8,000 ceased in September 2025, when the Father started paying the Mother a monthly sum of $4,550 instead and reduced the credit card limits on each of the credit cards available to her.

d) The Mother commenced these maintenance proceedings on 15 October 2025.

e) The Mother commenced divorce proceedings ⁹ on 31 October 2025.

16 The Parties’ held differing views on why the payments ceased / reduced:

a) The Mother’s view: The Father deliberately restricted the Mother’s access to financial resources ¹⁰ in order to exert financial coercion on the Mother with a view to take over control of the children’s affairs, so that he appears as the primary caregiver for the children’s care arrangements. ¹¹

b) The Father’s view: The Father noticed that the Mother had been spending more frivolously and excessively on grooming, dining out at lavish restaurants and purchasing luxury goods and jewellery etc ¹² . He realised that the $8,000 monthly allowance was far in excess of what the Mother required as reasonable maintenance for her and the children. ¹³

17 I now move on the parties’ respective cases.

18 In assessing the Mother’s claim for maintenance, I determined the reasonableness of the expenses as set out by the Mother. ¹⁴ I set out below the list of monthly expenses with my figures and an accompanying explanation for each.

Household Expenses

19 This was how I arrived at the sum of $4,000 as reasonable household expenses for the Mother, C1, C2 and C3. I now move on to the Mother’s expenses.

The Mother’s expenses

20 This was how I arrived at the sum of $2,450 as the Mother’s reasonable monthly expenses, including her share of reasonable household expenses. I now move on to the children’s expenses.

The children’s expenses

21 This was how I arrived at the sum of $6,000 as the children’s reasonable monthly expenses, including their share of reasonable household expenses.

22 I now move on to the Mother’s case in respect of why she commenced the current application. According to the Mother –

a) A sum of $8,000 was made available from the Father to her since April 2016. ¹⁷ The Mother had access to at least two supplementary credit cards with a substantial credit limit. ¹⁸ Sometime in September 2025, when the marriage broke down, the Father unilaterally decreased the sum made available to the Mother to $4,550 and severely restricted the use of the supplementary credit cards by imposing a significantly lower credit limit. ¹⁹ For one credit card, the Father set the monthly spend limit to $2,000 from no limit initially, and for the other credit card, the Father had further decreased spend limit from $2,000 to $500. ²⁰

b) Since their marriage ²¹ , the Mother had been a full-time housewife, homemaker and mother, managing every part of the children’s lives. ²² According to her, the Father is a man of substantial means and never had any concerns about being the sole breadwinner or maintaining the family and their lifestyle. ²³

c) The Father had deliberately delayed payments of bills for the household and/or children, which had caused the Mother significant stress and anxiety. ²⁴ Previously, the Mother would coordinate with third-party vendors, who would send the bills for the children’s school activities, bus and other miscellaneous expenses to her, following which the Mother would make payment, and seek reimbursement from the Father thereafter, or send the bill to the Father for direct repayment. ²⁵ The Father’s attempt to take over communications with the vendors from the Mother had caused significant issues and delays in payment. ²⁶ Without any funds made available to the Mother, she was required to resort to repeated reminders to the Father, without any ability to make advance payment. ²⁷

d) The sum of $8,000 was reasonable in the circumstances ²⁸ because the Father had been providing this sum since April 2016 with no increase or decrease throughout the pendency of the marriage. ²⁹

23 I now move on to the Father’s case.

24 According to the Father –

a) Up until end August 2025, the Father had consistently transferred to the Mother $8,000 per month to cover the Mother’s personal expenses, the helper’s salary and related expenses, and a small percentage of household expenses such as groceries and dining. ³⁰ He also paid for two supplemental credit cards and would “reimburse” the Mother for specific expenses incurred on credit cards in the Mother’s own name, as and when she requested. ³¹

b) By end 2024, when parties started having “divorce talks”, the Father noticed that the Mother had been spending more frivolously and excessively on grooming, dining out at lavish restaurants, purchasing luxury goods and jewellery etc. ³² The Father realised $8,000 monthly allowance was far in excess of what the Mother required as reasonable maintenance for her and the children. ³³

c) The Mother failed, neglected and/or refused to provide a breakdown of her personal, household and children’s expenses despite repeated requests from the Father. ³⁴ As such, the Father informed the Mother that he would be reducing the $8,000 monthly allowance to $4,550 based on his observations of the Mother’s spending and provided a breakdown for that figure. ³⁵

d) He was still maintaining the Mother as follows: paying $4,550 per month, paying for her two supplemental credit cards limited to $2,000 and $500 respectively, making ad-hoc reimbursements as requested and making direct payments to third-party vendors in respect of almost all of the household and children’s expenses. ³⁶ The Father submitted that the quantum of reasonable maintenance is what he has been paying as the status quo. ³⁷

e) As the sole breadwinner of the family, the Father had always provided financially for the children and the Mother, and all family expenses were paid by the Father directly to the service or goods provider. ³⁸ This remained the case except for very limited expenses which the Mother paid for, such as the helper’s salary and dining/grocery expenses, which are ultimately still financed by the Father through his payment of monthly allowance, credit cards or reimbursement. ³⁹

f) The Mother earned interest of about S$6,643.58 per month from her DBS portfolio ⁴⁰ , received monthly cash dividends of about S$725.21 per month ⁴¹ and received rental income from four Japanese properties amounting to about S$3,081.30 per month. ⁴²

25 For these reasons, the Father disagreed to the orders sought by the Mother and asked that MSS 2282/2025 be dismissed with costs as the Mother’s claim for interim maintenance for herself and the children was not made out, and the Father continued to provide maintenance in excess of what the Mother required. ⁴³

26 I now move on to my order.

27 Based on my assessment of the family’s expenses, I was unable to agree with the Father that a monthly cash sum of $8,000 towards the household, the Mother's personal expenses, and the children's expenses was frivolous or excessive, particularly given that I had adopted some of the Father's own figures in arriving at that amount. Accordingly, I found that by reducing the monthly cash sum from $8,000 to $4,550, the Father had refused to provide reasonable maintenance for the Mother and the children, and I was satisfied to make the orders sought in the current application.

28 I was also unable to place much weight on income from the Mother’s investments or rentals for several reasons –

a) these sources of income existed prior to October 2025; I therefore found the Father’s position that the Mother should now look to all these sources of income in order to meet reasonable expenses difficult to accept.

b) the evidence did not show that the Mother was expected to rely on such income to meet the household, children’s and her needs before October 2025; and

c) investments and rentals from property owned by the parties may be considered as part of the ancillary matters in the divorce proceedings.

29 The reduction of the cash portion by about 50% ⁴⁴ was not disputed, and in my assessment of expenses, $8,000 was a reasonable sum to meet the expenses of the household, three children and the Mother which were not currently being covered by the Father directly. In this regard, I noted that the Father had been making, and continues to make, direct payments for all other expenses in respect of the household, the Mother and children; these payments are documented and particularised in his own evidence. In my decision, it should be well understood that these payments ought to continue until further or other orders are made as part of the ancillary matters, for they provide a roof over the family’s head and enable the family to meet their daily needs.

30 I also considered the children’s medical needs important enough to make a separate order on, for this directly affects their welfare. In this regard, I noted there were issues arising from the Mother being unable to make certain medical payments by credit card. To avoid misunderstandings that could give rise to the children being unable to access their medical needs, I have simply made a separate order for the Father to make these payments directly.

31 In making my orders, I considered it unnecessary to make additional orders in respect of credit card and / or setting credit card limits for the Mother’s use for herself, the household and the children; I have assessed reasonable maintenance to be within the parameters of the Mother’s cash claim of $8,000 per month and made orders accordingly.

32 While I did find that the Mother’s reasonable total expenses were about $2,450, I arrived at this figure, in part, because I had found the Mother’s portion of reasonable household expenses to be $1,000. I also adopted the Father’s ‘self-care’ and ‘transport’ figures. Having regard to the totality of the expenses and the parameters of the Mother’s claim of $8,000 per month, I was not inclined to order more than $8,000 as a cash portion. Between direct payments made by the Father and access to some of her own funds / savings, I considered this small shortfall insignificant having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

33 I considered it most appropriate to commence the maintenance from the date on which the application was filed, that is, 15 October 2025, since the Mother sought a restoration of the status quo ⁴⁵ . Assuming that the Father had been making monthly payments of $4,550 from October 2025, this brought the shortfall to $3,450 per month ⁴⁶ . The sum of $34,500 ⁴⁷ was therefore due as arrears, being maintenance from October 2025 to July 2026. I also provided for a payment schedule for the arrears in the absence of any agreement between the parties.

34 Under my orders, the Father is responsible to make certain payments ⁴⁸ directly with effect from October 2025. Whether the Father had made these payments from October 2025 by cash or credit card did not change the cash payments of $8,000 due to the Mother because such payments fell outside the scope of the $8,000 cash portion.

35 In arriving at my decision, I considered the list of relevant factors under s.69 of the WC and all the circumstances of this case. For the reasons set out above, I granted orders on the Mother’s application to the extent that it was fair and reasonable to do so.

36 After hearing the Parties on costs ⁴⁹ , I ordered costs fixed $4,000, payable by the Father to the Mother.