S v. Y FCMC 8775 / 1998

S’s words:-
Even though circumstances do have changed, many husband still do not understand their own necessities to apply for a variation of maintenance order. On the contrary, they choose to disregard the same which finally the wives have to take out judgment summons.
In fact, the Family Court is now more willing to vary maintenance orders, in particular, more husbands got their new families. The burden of the new family has to be considered. Although the financial means of the new wives have to be taken into account, with such evidence showing limited means on their parts, it is expected that the Family Court would not be robust but is prepared to vary the maintenance order(s) to be reasonable sum taking into account of the updated situations.
The following case is just an example but in fact more cases the maintenance orders are varied (but in sensible manners).

--- quote from judgment ---

Date of Judgment : 21 June 2007

Under the Original Order – apart from a payment by the Husband of a lump sum of $2,975,000 (‘the Lump Sum”) to the Wife – the Husband agreed to pay the Wife periodical payments of $12,000 and $13,000 as maintenance for the Wife and B respectively. The ending date of the Wife’s maintenance is upon her remarriage whilst that of B until her reaching the age of 18 or completion of full time education, which expressly includes university education. The Husband now seeks to vary each of the said payments downwards to $1,000 each month.

The parties, in principle, have no quarrel with the general principles underlying section 11(7) of the MPPO. According to the principles derived from the authorities the parties have submitted, I summarize below the applicable guidelines :

(1) The court is to have regard to all circumstances of the case, including a regard to the circumstances de novo;[1]

(2) A duty to make full and frank disclosure, a breach of which duty by a party may lead to an adverse inference being drawn by the court;[2]

(3) A financially dependent wife should be reasonably expected to find a means to be self-sufficient in order to achieve financial independence;[3]

(4) When a husband has remarried, a court – in considering the financial circumstances of this husband – is required to take into account the circumstances of his new family, including the financial resources of the new spouse[4] as well as his obligation to such a family.[5] A court should not threaten a husband with an excessive order in exchange for his agreement to continue maintaining a former spouse;[6]

(5) There is no room for “defaulting husbands” for using a financial hardship induced by them as a change of circumstances;[7] and

(6) The exercise of a court’s power is wide and unrestricted – including a power to terminate periodical payments[8] as well as to back-date an order of variation[9] – and, the overall objective is to achieve a fair outcome.[10]

...

As for periodical payments for the Wife, I would reduce the payment from $12,000 per month to $7,500, commencing from 1st February 2007.