SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Loh Wai Mooi, Wang Liansheng, Valerie Goh and Petrina Tan, Bih Li & Lee LLP
The parents are jointly responsible for the main - tenance of their children up until the age of 21, or beyond that age if the court is satisfied main - tenance is necessary – for example, because the child has enrolled in tertiary education or has special needs. Spousal maintenance is also often complemen - tary to the division of matrimonial assets, which may be used to even out financial inequalities between spouses, taking into account any eco - nomic prejudice suffered by the wife or incapac - itated husband during the marriage (BG v BF (2007) 3 SLR 233). An order for maintenance may be in one lump sum in order to provide parties with a “clean break” from the marriage or may be in monthly instalments. However, the court in TDT v TDS and another appeal, and another matter (2016) 4 SLR 145 has cautioned that the purpose of spousal maintenance is not for the husband to act as an “insurer” for the former wife – in line with this approach, the courts have previ - ously ordered no maintenance for wives who are employed and able to provide for their own needs. 2.5 Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are not automatically enforceable/recognised by the Singapore courts. Such agreements will be sub - ject to the scrutiny of the court. The Singapore courts have the overarching pow - er to divide the matrimonial assets in such pro - portions as the court thinks just and equitable (Section 112(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961). In determining what is “just and equitable”, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and this includes whether there is
“any agreement between the parties with respect to the ownership and division of the matrimonial assets made in contemplation of divorce” (Sec - tion 112(2)(e) of the Women’s Charter 1961). Ulti - mately, the court will decide how much weight ought to be accorded to the prenuptial or post - nuptial agreement. In the case of postnuptial agreements, the court may accord them more weight than prenuptial agreements in the exercise of its discretion (TQ v TR (2009) 2 SLR (R) 961). Nevertheless, how much weight the court accords to such agree - ments will depend on the precise circumstances of the case – for example, whether the parties knew the legal consequences of entering into the agreement and whether the circumstances have changed since the parties entered into the agreement. The court is unlikely to accord signif - icant weight to a prenuptial or postnuptial agree - ment if doing so would result in an outcome that is not just and equitable. For prenuptial agreements relating to children’s issues, the court would be especially vigilant and would be reluctant to enforce agreements that are not apparently in the best interests of the child or the children concerned (TQ v TR (2009) 2 SLR (R) 961). The paramount consideration in determining custody, care and control, and access arrange - ments for a child/children is the welfare of the child/children. Therefore, prenuptial agreements relating to the custody, care and control of a child are presumed to be unenforceable unless it can be clearly demonstrated by the party rely - ing on the agreement that the agreement is in the best interests of the child/children involved (TQ v TR (2009) 2 SLR (R) 961).
282 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook