Donations 500 0 Total 38,154.73 9,877.98 [31] The Respondent's primary argument for requesting a monthly amount of MYR40,000 was that this sum was necessary to maintain her lifestyle. [32] At this juncture, it was crucial to remind the Parties that there is no guaranteed continuity in the exact standard of living for a spouse post-separation or divorce. Financial arrangements, asset division, and spousal support can vary widely, resulting in different outcomes in different cases. While the legal system strives to achieve fairness, it cannot ensure identical outcomes for every couple divorcing or separating due to the multifaceted nature of individual circumstances. Hence, the Court's primary responsibility was to ensure that there was no drastic change in the living conditions of the spouse receiving 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 maintenance, particularly if the marriage lasted for a significant duration. [33] I am mindful of the case Re Borthwick (Deceased); Borthwick & Anor v. Beauvais & Ors [1949] 1 Ch 395, which has been cited in numerous Malaysian cases. The following is the oft-quoted passage by Harman J: It is said that maintenance is the only thing you can look at. What does that mean? It does not mean you can only give the dependant just enough to put a little jam on his bread and butter. It has been already held that what is reasonable for one may not be reasonable for another. It must depend on the circumstances of the case. It certainly depends to some extent on the circumstances of the widow, but I think it may also depend on the circumstances of the testator, that is to say, whether he died a rich man or not, because a rich man may be supposed to have made better provision for his wife's maintenance than a poor one. Maintenance does not only mean the food she puts in her mouth it means the clothes on her back, the house in which she lives, and the money which she has to have in her pocket, all of which vary according to the means of the man who leaves a wife behind him. I think that must be so. Maintenance cannot mean only mere subsistence. [Emphasis added.] [34] In revisiting the case of Re Borthwick (Deceased); Borthwick & Anor v. Beauvais & Ors (“Re Borthwick”), it was crucial to correct a common misconception arising from its frequent misinterpretation. This landmark decision, delivered 75 years ago, has been referenced in diverse contexts that sometimes exceed its original intent. The central dispute concerned the financial entitlement of the testator’s wife following substantial changes in their marital and financial circumstances. 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 [35] Initially, the couple in Re Borthwick faced financial hardship that led to the testator's bankruptcy, prompting his wife to move back in with her parents. Despite these challenges, the testator continued to provide his wife with a weekly allowance of GBP3. This commitment persisted even as his financial situation dramatically improved, transforming him from financial distress to significant wealth. [36] The crux of the legal issue in Re Borthwick was not merely the amount of financial support provided to the wife, but rather the appropriateness of maintaining this support given the substantial improvement in the testator’s financial circumstances. Ultimately, the court in that case concluded that the wife's entitlement should reflect the changed economic status more substantially than the symbolic GBP3 per week initially provided. [37] Re Borthwick exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness and equity in financial arrangements after marriage, especially when there are significant changes in a party's financial capacity. It serves as a poignant reminder of the Court's role in adapting legal outcomes to the unpredictable economic shifts of life, rather than rigidly adhering to arrangements that no longer reflect current circumstances. [38] Although Re Borthwick (Deceased) is still referred to in several cases, I gained more valuable insights from Singaporean legal precedents set forth in cases such as Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] 2 SLR 506, ATE v ATD [2016] SGCA 2, and VPU v VPT [2021] SGCA. These cases, more contemporary in nature, offer a pragmatic perspective on 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 spousal maintenance post-separation, particularly concerning the entitlements of the wife. [39] Central to these rulings is the principle of financial preservation, which dictates that the maintenance awarded should, to a reasonable extent, reflect the standard of living enjoyed by the wife during the marriage. However, this principle is applied with flexibility rather than rigidity. The Singapore courts have advocated for a "commonsense holistic approach" that recognises the altered financial landscape post-separation or divorce. [40] This nuanced approach underscores a fundamental reality, that is, after separation or divorce, both parties must adapt to a new economic reality where maintaining an identical standard of living as during the marriage is impractical. The financial resources that once supported a single household must now stretch to cover two, inevitably reducing the available resources for each party. [41] Thus, while the objective was to prevent a significant decline in the Respondent's standard of living, the expectation of replicating the exact marital standard was both unrealistic and unsupported by law. These cases collectively highlight the Court's endeavour to strike a balance between fairness and pragmatism, acknowledging the financial implications of divorce and the necessity to adjust to changed circumstances without clinging to past lifestyles. [42] Hence, upon conducting a thorough review of the Respondent's submitted expenses, I observed several key issues. 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 [43] Firstly, a number of the claimed expenses appeared to be inflated beyond reasonable amounts for the goods or services purportedly purchased. This discrepancy suggested either a lack of accurate record-keeping or a deliberate attempt to overstate costs. [44] Secondly, I identified various expenses that seemed unnecessary in the context of the Respondent's activities or objectives. These items did not appear to contribute meaningfully to the intended outcomes and raised questions about the prudence of such expenditures. [45] Furthermore, a significant portion of the expenses lacked proper justification. Essential documentation, such as receipts, invoices, or explanations detailing the necessity and appropriateness of the expenses, was either missing or insufficient. This lack of substantiation undermined the legitimacy of the claimed costs and suggested an exaggeration of expenses. In summary, a closer examination revealed that the Respondent's expense claims included unjustified and irrelevant expenditures. [46] For instance, regarding items 1 to 4 of Table A, the Respondent listed her food expenses under categories such as wet market items, groceries, fruits and nuts, and food take-out, totalling MYR2,255.35. I found this allocation unreasonably high and inflated, especially for the food expenses of a single person. Therefore, I combined the costs of groceries and food into a single category, totalling MYR1,200. [47] The Respondent's monthly claim of MYR1,770 for vitamins, supplements, medicines, medical treatment, and ayurvedic medicines was reviewed and considered excessive. It was deemed unreasonable 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 to justify these expenses as necessary on a monthly basis. In response, I consolidated these various healthcare expenses into a single category, totalling MYR500 monthly. This adjustment aimed to ensure that financial support reflected reasonable and essential healthcare needs while maintaining a prudent allocation of resources. It underscored the importance of balancing support with practical considerations, ensuring fairness and sustainability in the allocation of maintenance payments. [48] The Respondent’s claim of MYR2,408.40 monthly for dental and eye-care expenses was excessive, especially since there was no evidence indicating a regular need for these services at such a frequency. As a result, I consolidated both dental and eye-care expenses into a single category, totaling MYR650 monthly. This adjustment was aimed to align the financial support more closely with reasonable and necessary healthcare costs, ensuring that the allocation of resources remained practical and fair in light of the circumstances. [49] The Respondent's claims totalling MYR3,600 for self-care items (items 11 to 15 of Table A), including some items without receipts, were excessive and lacked justification. In response, I consolidated these expenses into a single category totalling MYR600 per month. This adjustment aimed to bring her self-care spending more in line with reasonable and documented needs. [50] The Respondent’s request for MYR2,630 per month for clothes, handbags, jewellery, and miscellaneous items was reduced to MYR1,000. Given that the Respondent claimed she was unemployed, 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 19 it raised the question of why such a large amount was necessary for personal items such as clothes and handbags. This reduction reflected a more practical approach to managing personal and discretionary spending, ensuring that financial support was allocated appropriately given the circumstances. The adjustments were made to ensure fairness and better align with the financial realities following the separation or divorce proceedings. [51] The Respondent's monthly expenses for Maxis Internet, electricity, ASTRO, Indah Water, Air Selangor, and quit rent were reviewed and allowed as claimed. Additionally, her claims for car insurance payments and road tax were deemed valid and allowed as claimed. [52] However, reductions were made to her claims for petrol and Touch & Go allocation, from MYR700 and MYR400 respectively to MYR500 and MYR300, which reflected a more reasonable estimate of her transportation costs. Similarly, her claim for car maintenance for MYR1,000 was adjusted downward to MYR750. These adjustments were made to ensure that the maintenance payments aligned closely with essential expenses, balancing financial support with practical considerations. [53] The Respondent's claims for house maintenance totaling MYR6,375 and a house cleaner costing MYR2,000 were assessed as excessive given her current situation in the Matrimonial Home. In light of this, I reduced these amounts to MYR800 and MYR600 respectively. This decision was aimed at encouraging the Respondent to reorganise her living arrangements to better suit her current circumstances. It 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 reflected a practical approach to managing expenses, ensuring they aligned more closely with her actual needs and resources. [54] The Respondent's claims for travel expenses amounting to MYR8,000 and entertainment/social activities totaling MYR5,000 were significantly adjusted to a total of MYR1,500. This decision took into account the Respondent's documented health issues, which suggested that frequent travel might not be feasible or advisable. By reducing these expenses, the aim was to align the financial support more closely with practical and essential needs, ensuring that resources are used judiciously while still allowing for reasonable leisure and social activities within her means and health constraints. [55] The Respondent's claim for MYR1,000 for food expenses for her dogs and birds was reconsidered and ultimately reduced to MYR500. This decision was based on the understanding that this Application was intended to address the Respondent's own essential needs, and not those of her pets. In my view, it was deemed necessary to prioritise the Respondent's financial support towards sustaining her own well-being before considering additional expenditures on pets. The reduction in pet-related expenses to MYR500 was aimed at ensuring that the maintenance payments were allocated responsibly and effectively towards meeting the Respondent's primary needs. It underscored the principle that financial support should primarily address human necessities, particularly in situations where overall financial resources may be limited or under scrutiny. 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 [56] In my view, prioritising financial support towards practical and essential living expenses was paramount. I, therefore, concluded that allocating maintenance payments towards temple prayers, flowers, and donations did not align with the intended purpose of the support sought in this Application. This decision was aimed at ensuring that maintenance payments were used responsibly and effectively to meet the Respondent's genuine needs arising from the divorce, rather than for discretionary or non-essential expenses. [57] In my final analysis, I concluded that the Respondent had not substantiated her claim for a monthly maintenance payment of MYR40,000. After careful consideration of the evidence and circumstances presented, I determined that a more appropriate monthly amount was MYR9,877.98, as reflected in the third column of Table A. This amount was then rounded up to MYR 10,000. [58] I also referenced the case of Ananda Dharmalingam v. Chantella Honeybee Sargon [2006] 1 LNS 176; [2006] 6 MLJ 179, where I found insightful guidance from the comments made by Faiza Thamby Chik J. His Lordship’s remarks provided valuable perspective on similar issues in the following passage: Having dealt with the above facts, I will reiterate the two separate tests set out in the LRA (one for the wife and another for the children) that must be considered in considering maintenance for the wife and children herein. By virtue of s. 78 of the LRA set out aforesaid, the only test that this court needs to adopt in deciding if (interim) maintenance should be awarded to the wife in these proceedings is the means and needs of the parties. The wife in the application herein contends that she needs RM6,800 in maintenance. However, the wife has not satisfied or discharged her duty to evidence that she does indeed need this sum of money. Indeed, the 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 breakdown put forward by the wife at para 8 of her affidavit affirmed on 21 June 2004 does not add up to the amount of RM6,800. Further, the matters detailed in the said breakdown have not been evidenced by any receipts or bills or any form of documentation or other evidence whatsoever. It is therefore my finding that the wife has not adequately and/or properly evidenced her needs and that the figure of RM6,800 claimed by the wife in the application herein is an excessive and unjustified amount. The husband in this case had been working in government service until recently. He left government practice at the end of last year. He only began working as a doctor in private practice from March 2004. In the circumstances, this is a husband who had only just started out in his career in private practice. [Emphasis added.] [59] In fact, when considering the addition of the housing instalment of MYR9,400 and the monthly medical insurance of MYR880.64 to the monthly maintenance payment of MYR10,000, the total monthly obligation of the Petitioner towards the Respondent would be over MYR20,000. This amount, in my view, was sufficient to meet the maintenance of the Respondent. [60] The Petitioner argued that the monthly payments to the Respondent were unjustified, claiming that she received funds from the sale of assets that were not disclosed to him, and that she did not deserve to be maintained at that level. [61] Given that the Respondent disputed many of the Petitioner's claims, lack of verification at this stage led me to reject the Petitioner's argument regarding the alleged undisclosed funds. [62] I was guided by the cases of Diana Clarice Chan Chiing Hwa v. Tiong Chiong Hoo [2002] 1 CLJ 721, [2002] 2 MLJ 97, [2002] 2 AMR 1527 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 and Gan Koo Kea v. Gan Shiow Lih [2003] 4 CLJ 539; [2003] 4 MLJ 770, [2003] 6 AMR 459, where it was stated that in light of conflicting accounts that have not been subjected to the rigorous processes of cross-examination and re-examination, which would occur in a full trial with viva voce evidence, the Court's duty was to disregard the disputed facts. Instead, the Court was obligated to base its decision solely on the undisputed facts. [63] This crucial aspect of civil litigation practice has been eloquently summarised by Lord Templeman for the Privy Council in Tay Bok Choon v. Tahansan Sdn Bhd [1987] CLJ Rep 24, [1987] MLRA 68, [1987] 1 MLJ 433, in the following words: At the end of the day the judge must decide the petition on the evidence before him. If allegations are made in affidavits by the petitioner and those allegations are credibly denied by the respondent's affidavits, then in the absence of oral evidence or cross examination, the judge must ignore the disputed allegations. The judge must then decide the fate of the petition by consideration of the undisputed facts. [Emphasis added.] [64] An analogy was drawn also to the case of Lee Chin Guan (L) v Pang Kim Joon (P) [2017] MLJU 2021, where the Court had taken into consideration factors such as the wife’s devotion to the family, the unlikelihood of the wife to be gainfully employed; and the wife's health and medical needs. The following passages by Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz JC (as she then was) were relevant to the present case. In the present case, I take note that PH was the one who instituted this divorce petition and it is not disputed that RW is a housewife as she had been for the past 30 years of her marriage to PH. She took care of the family 17 July 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 while PH was the one who worked and financially maintained the family. RW is now a 60-year-old woman who at this age would be difficult for her to find a job and it is reasonable for PH to maintain her even though they are soon to be divorced, because she is entitled to under the said Act to claim maintenance from PH. … The issue of a fair and reasonable maintenance must be determined by reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. In Chaw Anui v Tan Kim Chai [2004] 4 Mil 272, the court considered the following factors: (1) devotion of the wife; (2) the unlikelihood of the wife to be gainfully employed;