WPK v WPJ

[2024] SGHCF 8 High Court (Family Division) 5 February 2024 • HCF/DCA 66/2023 • 10 min read

2 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (Family Division)
Decided	5 February 2024
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Family Law
Counsel	R Ramason & Almenoar, Tan Rajah & Cheah, Diana Foo, Hassan Esa Almenoar, Phoebe Tan

Source: [2024] SGHCF 8, High Court (Family Division), decided 5 February 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division Family Law — Maintenance — Child — Post-graduate tertiary educational expenses are luxuries that parents should not be obliged to pay for

Practice Areas

Family Law

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (5)

R Ramason & Almenoar Firm Tan Rajah & Cheah Firm Diana Foo Counsel Appellant Hassan Esa Almenoar Counsel Appellant Phoebe Tan Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

WPJ Respondent WPK Appellant

Case Significance

WPK v WPJ [2024] SGHCF 8 was decided in the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) by Choo Han Teck J on 5 February 2024, in District Court Appeal No 66 of 2023. The appellant husband, aged 63, was a lecturer at a university in Singapore, and the respondent wife, aged 52, was a homemaker. Originally from Sri Lanka and now permanent residents in Singapore, the parties married in December 1998 and had two adult sons, "K" and "R". The wife filed for divorce on 10 August 2021, with interim judgment granted on 28 October 2021, and the ancillary matters were heard on 25 May 2023.

The District Judge had decided that the matrimonial assets were to be divided equally and awarded the wife backdated maintenance of $5,000 a month up to July 2023, totalling $85,000, with no maintenance payable thereafter. The husband appealed against the division of matrimonial assets, the backdated maintenance, and the provisions (or lack thereof) for the tertiary educational expenses of K and R. The catchwords record Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division and a maintenance point stating that post-graduate tertiary educational expenses are luxuries that parents should not be obliged to pay for.

Summary

A 63-year-old university lecturer (the Husband) appealed against a District Judge's ancillary orders following the dissolution of his marriage to a 52-year-old homemaker (the Wife), challenging the equal division of matrimonial assets, the award of $85,000 in backdated maintenance to the wife, and the absence of provision for the two adult sons' tertiary educational expenses. The High Court (Family Division), per Choo Han Teck J, found that the husband had adduced no documentary evidence to support his claim that his siblings had lent him over $1 million, and held that his unchanged earning capacity meant his obligation to maintain the wife during the period he chose to work for a lower salary in Sri Lanka remained. The court dismissed the husband's appeal and made no order as to costs.

What did the catchwords in WPK v WPJ [2024] SGHCF 8 say about tertiary education costs?

The catchwords in WPK v WPJ [2024] SGHCF 8 state that post-graduate tertiary educational expenses are luxuries that parents should not be obliged to pay for. The case, heard by Choo Han Teck J, also concerned division of matrimonial assets and backdated maintenance.

What did the District Judge order in WPK v WPJ [2024] SGHCF 8?

In WPK v WPJ [2024] SGHCF 8, the District Judge divided the matrimonial assets equally and awarded the wife backdated maintenance of $5,000 a month up to July 2023, totalling $85,000, with no maintenance payable thereafter. The husband appealed these decisions.