Jurisdiction and Absence in Cross-Border Family Proceedings

Introduction

In this decision, the Family Court decided to proceed with hearing and determining the Wife’s application for spousal and child maintenance from the Husband, despite the Husband’s absence and jurisdictional objection. The Wife was successfully represented by Yoon Min Joo and Sarah Tan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.

Background Facts 

The applicant wife (“Wife“) and the respondent husband (“Husband“) are both expatriates. The Husband had been the breadwinner, transferring money to the Wife for family expenses, but these transfers were subsequently reduced and eventually cut off entirely. The Wife filed the application, seeking maintenance for herself and their four children under sections 69(1) and 69(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961. She claimed: (i) S$14,242.17 per month in spousal and child maintenance, comprising S$1,897.40 for herself, and S$4,446.57, S$3,122.40, S$3,040.40 and S$1,745.30 for each of the four children, respectively; (ii) backdated maintenance from 1 September 2024; (iii) payment of outstanding school fees of S$7,993.36 and S$2,320 for two of the children (“Outstanding School Fees“); and (iv) repayment of debts incurred for family expenses while the family was living in Korea (“Korea Debts“).

The Husband did not attend the trial. He claimed, via a series of emails, that his employment had been terminated and that he had been repatriated from Singapore. Thus, he challenged the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts to hear the application.

The Court ordered the Husband to pay: (i) spousal and child monthly maintenance of S$13,761.67; (ii) backdated maintenance from May 2025 totalling S$68,808.35; (iii) the Outstanding School Fees; and (iv) costs fixed at S$15,000 (all-in), but disallowed the Wife’s claim for repayment of the Korea Debts.

Holding of the Family Court 

Proceeding Despite the Husband’s Absence and Jurisdictional Objection

The Court agreed with the Wife’s counsel’s submissions that it could proceed under Part 3, Rule 15(2) of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024, which permits the court to hear and determine an application in the respondent’s absence, if: (i) the respondent does not appear despite due service of the summons; and (ii) no sufficient ground is shown for an adjournment. The Court found that the Husband clearly knew of the hearing date, and that although he produced a termination letter from his employer, there was no evidence that his work pass (which allowed him to reside in Singapore) had also been terminated.

The Court held it did not need to decide the Husband’s jurisdictional objection because he had not adduced any evidence to demonstrate why another court was best placed to hear the application. The bona fides of the objection was also questionable, as the Husband had appeared at various mentions without raising jurisdictional objections, and had filed documents in response to the application. In any event, the Singapore court was best placed to hear the application given that the Wife was still living here with the children.

The Wife’s Claims

1. Spousal and child monthly maintenance: The Court found the Husband had neglected to provide for his family, characterising this as a “common case” where one parent with no funds has to repeatedly ask for money from the other parent who pays only irregularly. Even accepting that the Husband had lost his job, the evidence suggested he had other sources of income, such as various stock and property investments. As the Wife was unemployed, it was only fair that the Husband shoulder the entire financial burden of supporting the family. The Court assessed reasonable maintenance for the Wife and four children at S$13,761.67 per month, a downward adjustment from the Wife’s claim of S$14,242.17, due to the Court’s adjustments to the claimed transportation costs. The Court held that the sums claimed for the children went towards their food, housing and education, and the sums claimed for the Wife were only enough to cover the bare essentials.

2. Backdated maintenance: The Court did not consider it fair to backdate maintenance to September 2024 as claimed by the Wife, because, on her own evidence, the amounts she received from the Husband in better times varied and in some months she received more. The Court backdated maintenance to May 2025, being the month in which the Husband had completely cut off maintenance, resulting in a total backdated sum of S$68,808.35.

3. Outstanding School Fees: The Court agreed that the Husband should be ordered to pay these fees forthwith, as the evidence suggested that both children would be unable to attend school if the arrears were not paid, which would be unduly harsh on them.

4. Repayment of Korea Debts: The Court disallowed this claim on the basis that, although the Wife had provided evidence of such loans, she did not provide proof that they had actually been used for family expenses.

5. Costs: The Court held that costs should follow the event as a starting point, given that the Wife had succeeded. Considering the length of the trial, the conduct of the parties (including the Husband’s absence with no good reason furnished) and the volume of documents, the Court fixed costs at S$15,000 (all-in).

Concluding Words

Respondents would do well to observe the procedural rules for appearing once they have been duly served with an application; the risk being that the application may proceed to be heard and determined (including orders made against them) notwithstanding their absence. Respondents should also take note of the arguments and evidence required in support of their jurisdictional objections and ensure that their conduct in court is not inconsistent with such objections.