In YKO v YKP [2026] SGFC 137, the Singapore Family Court had to determine whether a Father had neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for the Mother and their three children under section 69 of the Women’s Charter 1961 when he cut his monthly payments. On the issue of arrears, the Court also had to decide the start date for maintenance and how much was owed.
The Father was the sole breadwinner, and for years before August 2025, he transferred S$8,000 a month to the Mother for personal and household expenses, and also paid for her credit cards. However, in September 2025 he reduced the transfer to S$4,550 and lowered the card limits.
The Mother filed for maintenance on 15 October 2025, followed by divorce proceedings. She asked for, among other, S$8,000 a month in cash, split equally between herself and the three children, and direct payment of rent, utilities and similar bills. The Mother submitted that the Father had cut her access to money to exert financial coercion and to position himself as the children’s primary caregiver.
The Court first set out the applicable law in making maintenance orders:
- Under section 69 of the Women’s Charter, the court may order maintenance where it is shown that a husband or father has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for his wife or child.
- The relevant considerations in making such an order include: (i) the financial needs of the wife or child; (ii) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources of the wife or child; and (iii) the standard of living enjoyed by the wife or child.
Applying the above, the Court ordered the Father to pay S$8,000 a month from 15 October 2025 and to continue direct payment of the relevant expenses.
- Maintenance: The Court did not accept that S$8,000 a month was frivolous or excessive, especially since it had used some of the Father’s own figures. By cutting the sum to S$4,550, the Father had refused to provide reasonable maintenance. The Court also gave little weight to the Mother’s own income from rental and investments, as it had existed before October 2025, and the Mother had not been expected to rely on it before then.
- Arrears: The Court held that maintenance ran from the date the application was filed, 15 October 2025, because the Mother was asking to restore the previous arrangement. The shortfall was S$3,450 a month (S$8,000 minus S$4,550), leading to arrears of S$34,500.
The Mother was successfully represented by Shawn Teo and Andre Teo of Rajah & Tann Singapore.
If you have any queries on the above, please reach out to our Partner listed on this page.
For regional Private Wealth matters, please see Rajah & Tann Asia’s Private Wealth Practice for more information.
Disclaimer
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.
