Tss v. Tpm
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 791/2016 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before Deputy District Judge D. Cheung.
Maintenance Pending Suit – District Court – Interim Child Maintenance – Ability to Pay – Matrimonial Home – Financial Disclosure – Flat H Proceeds – Costs in the Cause – Reasonableness Test – Broad Brush Approach – TSS v TPM – MPS Summons adjourned sine die – HK company financial position – Husband's earnings potential – Flat H mortgage foreclosure risk – Security for maintenance – May 2017 effective date – Son HK$16,800/month – Daughter HK$10,600/month
Legal issues: Maintenance Amount · Ability to Pay · Effective Date
Outcome: Maintenance Pending Suit granted. Husband ordered to pay monthly maintenance for children.
Cites 3 cases
|
FCMC 791/2016 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 791 OF 2016 ------------------------
------------------------
----------------------- J U D G M E N T ------------------------ 1.This is a hearing of the petitioner wife’s (hereinafter called “the wife”) application for the children maintenance pending suit (“MPS”) against the respondent husband (hereinafter called “the husband”). 2.The Summons for MPS was taken out on 26th April 2016 with a returned date on 23rd May 2016 “hereinafter called “MPS Summons”). On 7th September 2016, it was agreed by both parties that MPS Summons be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore. The wife later requested to restore MPS Summons for argument. 3.In her submission, she stated that she asked for (i) MPS for the sum of HK$46,420 per month being half of the monthly general and children expenses, and she requested that the (ii) MPS be dated back to 27th April 2016. She also requested that (iii) the husband to pay the monthly mortgage for Flat H (hereinbelow defined)(including those overdue and future payment) (iv) and to release her as guarantor for Flat H. 4.Originally both parties were legally represented, but at the time of the hearing, both parties acted in person. Brief History 5.The wife is now aged 45 and the husband is now aged 44. The parties were married in June 1997.Within wedlock, they have 1 son and 1 daughter, now aged 16 and 11 respectively, and both of them are students. 6.The matrimonial home was in fact a combined flat of two apartments with the partition wall joining the 2 flats being demolished, namely Flat G and Flat H (hereinafter collectively called the “matrimonial home” and individually called “Flat G” and “Flat H”). Flat G is registered in the wife’s name whereas Flat H is registered in the husband’s name. 7.The wife is the sole director and the sole shareholder of a limited liability company incorporated in Hong Kong in 2006 (hereinafter called “HK company”) and is in the business of selling watches. 8.Throughout the years, all the expenses including but not limited to the mortgage payments of Flat G and Flat H, utility bills, management fees, Government rates, the domestic helper’s salary and all household expenses were paid from money sourced from HK company and/or from the wife’s savings, and all these family and children expenses were paid by the profit generated by HK company. 9.In 2012, the wife and the husband set up an office in Los Angeles (hereinafter called “the LA company”). In about January 2014, the parties agreed that the husband should move to the USA to dedicate his entire time to running the business of LA company. Since then, the husband would stay mostly in the USA and occasionally returned to Hong Kong to stay for around 10 days per month. 10.HK company would supply goods to LA company and LA company would sell goods to its US customers. It was arranged between the wife and the husband that the husband was the sole owner of LA company while the wife would act as the sole director and shareholder of HK company. 11.At the time of the set up of LA company, HK company had incurred a loan of HK$2 million from HSBC (“the loan”) in order to fund the set up in LA company. The loan was secured by Flat G. 12.Previously, the husband also received a salary of HK$35,000 per month from HK company which was paid to him by way of direct deposit into the joint account held by the wife and the husband. The mortgage repayment of Flat H, utility bills and management fees of the matrimonial home, government rates, salary of the domestic helper, family’s monthly membership fee of a private club and part of the household expenses were paid by the husband’s salary received from HK company. 13.The wife also received her own salary from HK company which was paid to her by way of direct deposit into her personal account. The mortgage repayment of Flat G, children school fees, children expenses and other household expenses were paid by the wife’s salary received from HK company. 14.Since 12th November 2015, the wife revoked the husband from being an authorized signatory of the bank account of HK company, and the husband was not allowed to enter into the office of the HK company, and the husband had been excluded from managing HK company and the daily operation of HK company. In addition, since November 2015, the husband also stopped receiving any salary from HK company. 15.The wife subsequently took out an application under FCMP 278/2015 asking for non-molestation order and ouster order against the husband. Pursuant to the non-molestation and ouster order dated 29th December 2015 (hereinafter called the “ouster order”) in the aforesaid proceedings, the husband was ousted from the matrimonial home. 16.Later, both party agreed that the husband could give his undertakings in place of ouster order. Pursuant to the husband’s undertakings made to the wife and to the court on 5th May 2016, the husband remained ousted from the matrimonial home. 17.On 7th September 2016, the husband and the wife was granted joint custody of the children and the wife was granted care and control of all the children with reasonable access to the husband, and the husband remained ousted from the matrimonial home, whereas the children and the wife would stay at the matrimonial home. 18.LA company was dissolved later, and the husband was currently employed by a company in the USA (hereinafter called “J Inc.”) and receiving a salary of HK$25,000. 19.Both parties had filed and exchanged their respective affirmations and Form E Financial Statements. Questionnaire had also been filed and exchanged. The Law on Interim Maintenance 20.Section 3 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap. 192(hereinafter called “MPPO”) states that the only governing principle is that the court shall make such order as it considers reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case. Consequently applications such as these are approached on a broad-brush basis. A detailed examination of the parties’ means may be examined at a later date at a full ancillary relief hearing if there is no agreement in the meantime, when there is then every opportunity to achieve fairness by means of set off. In other words, if there is any overpayment or underpayment that can normally be rectified at a final ancillary relief hearing. 21.For the interim maintenance of a child, the governing section is s.5 MPPO (which provides for the maintenance of a child), to be read together with r.78 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, Cap.179A (which empowers the Court to grant an interim order upon the application for ancillary relief). 22.The overriding consideration for such applications is reasonableness. The Court has to balance the reasonable needs of the applicant and the ability to pay of the respondent on an interim basis (LJ v LWHH [2003] 3 HKC 455 at 461D). 23.In undertaking this balancing exercise, the Court will adopt a broad brush approach, and not a detailed investigation of the financial positions of the parties (per Cheung JA in LAML v TCCY CACV75/2004, 13/9/2004 at pp.7-8). 24.It is clear that under this provision there is no power to make an order for an interim lump sum or an interim order for sale or transfer of property, but otherwise the court has an unfettered discretion in the matter subject to the result being reasonable: F v F (maintenance pending suit) (1983) 4 FLR 382. 25.As for the matters which the court should consider in assessing an application for maintenance pending suit, Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters, 18th Edition, said these as follows:
26.The following principles quoted in the case of HJFG v KCY (CACV 127/2011, 28 October 2011, should be noted when considering maintenance pending suit/interim maintenance applications:
27.In practice, as oral evidence is rarely given, it will be unusual for the court on an application for maintenance pending suit to be in a position to make findings of fact on issues in dispute sufficient, for example, to deal with conduct or allegations of non disclosure. 28.However if it is demonstrated that the paying party has not performed his duty to make full and frank disclosure of his financial resources, then the court can take a broad and robust view of his means, and it does not have to accept and proceed on the basis of the assertions of the paying party as to his means and an inability to pay. 29.The court can look at the reality of the situation and take into account voluntary funding from third parties. Any under provision or over provision in the order for maintenance pending suit can always be corrected at the time the account comes to be taken at the substantive hearing when there is every opportunity to do fairness by set-off. 30.It is with these guidance and general principles in mind that I now considered the MPS application. The wife’s Case 31.The wife’s case is that the application for MPS was originally made on 27th April 2016, as her expenses were increasing and she could no longer bear the burden of paying all the bills alone, she therefore requested the husband to share the burden. 32.In her written submission, the wife stated that the family’s general expenses was HK$44,011 and the children’s expenses was HK$48,829 and the total amount was HK$92,840.00. 33.The wife stated that at the time of setup of LA company, HK company had incurred the loan. Flat G was used as a security for the loan, and HK company needed to repay a monthly instalment of HK$27,801 to the bank. 34.In addition to that, HK company had supplied nearly HK$2 million worth of goods to LA company for which the said amount had not been settled by the husband before the husband closed down LA company. 35.The wife stated that apart from the above mentioned expenses, HK company also took an overdraft facility on 8th July 2013 for HK$1 million which was later increased to HK$1.5 million in 2014 as there was a shortage of cash flow in the company. 36.The wife stated that as a result, she was facing a cash flow problem, and she had also done less business in these 4 years which led to less income. The wife also stated that she might lose Flat G, as Flat G was used to secure against the loan given to HK company. 37.The wife also stated that the husband had not paid the mortgage repayment of Flat H. According to the bank facility, the wife was the guarantor for Flat H and the husband was the guarantor for Flat G. 38.The wife’s case is that the husband has sufficient fund to make payment for the mortgage and to pay his share of monthly expenses for the children and the household. The wife alleged that the husband has cash available to him in the past 3 years for a total sum of HK$8,407,750. The wife said that there was a loan from the father of the husband for the sum of HK$1,557,750. The husband got a loan from HK company, and non-payment of goods supplied by HK company for the sum of HK$2 million. Finally, the husband got the sale proceeds of a property in India for the sum of HK$2,850,000. 39.The wife also stated that the husband owned J Inc. instead of being employed by J Inc., and since the husband failed to disclose certain documents, the wife asked the court to draw an adverse inference on the husband’s ability to pay. 40.The wife also disputed the amount of the expenses of the husband. The husband’s case 41.The husband’s case rests both on the issue of quantum of maintenance pending suit and his ability to pay. 42.The husband also argued that he used to draw HK$35,000 per month from HK company for the family monthly expenses which covered the expenses of Flat H mortgage, government rates, water bill and electricity bill for Flat G and H, domestic helper salary, private club membership monthly charges and school bus fee for the daughter, whereas the wife will take care of the children school fees and all the other household expenses, and the yearly holidays expenses will also be paid by HK company. 43.The husband stated that he is currently employed by J Inc. and receiving a salary of HK$25,000. He asserted that he had no other source of income. He required approximately HK$25,200 per month for his own expenditure. He was paying the mortgage installment of Flat H until July 2015 and since August 2015, he was unable to pay the said mortgage installment any more. 44.Since December 2015, because of the ouster order, he was no longer living in the matrimonial home and had to stay in hotel when he was in Hong Kong and USA. 45.The husband stated that the wife had overstated the expenses because the wife’s claim of expenses each month was HK$92,840, whereas his calculation was only HK$44,000 per month. He argued that it was unknown to him how the wife had drastically increased the expenses in year 2015 to 2016, as at that time both the husband and the wife used to draw a total of HK$50,000 from HK company. 46.The husband stated that the additional items the wife is now paying which were previously paid by the husband through his salary from HK company were the water/light/management fees and the domestic helper salary which was approximately HK$8,500 per month. 47.The husband expected that the school fee of the son would increase by approximately an extra of HK$10,000 per month, however the husband observed that the wife had withdrawn cash of approximately HK$80,800 per month which was far more than the actual expenses. 48.The husband also argued that since HK company is a family asset, HK company can generate approximately HK$600,000 profit a year, therefore the wife can use the profit of HK company to cover all the household expenses. Issues of the case 49.The following issues arise for my consideration:
Issue 1 How much maintenance should the husband pay to the wife as reasonable maintenance pending suit for the children? The wife’s Financial Position and needs 50.What is maintenance pending suit? By definition, maintenance pending suit is restricted to payments which constitute “maintenance”, which are reasonable in the circumstances and which will endure for no longer than it takes to determine the divorce litigation. 51.“Maintenance” is a broad concept, and it must be restricted to those payments necessary to meet the recurring costs of living at whatever standard of living as appropriate. 52.An important factor in determining fairness is a consideration of the marital standard of living. In this regard, each case must be considered according to its own circumstances. 53.In the present case, my focus should be ondetermining the “immediate and reasonable needs” of the children. 54.The wife in her submission stated that the previous monthly expenses for general and children was HK$59,284 and HK$34,179 respectively which was slightly higher than the figures stated in her Form E dated 18th March 2016. The wife stated in her submission that her calculation of the present monthly expenses for general and the children was HK$44,011 and HK$48,829 respectively. 55.It is well settled that in every maintenance pending suit application there should be a specific maintenance pending suit budget which excludes capital or long term expenditure, more aptly to be considered on a final hearing. During the hearing, both parties had made concession to most of the items of the general and the children expenses. 56.Both parties agree that the mortgage installments, utilities, management fees and domestic helper should be HK$10,433, HK$5,000, HK$1,300 and HK$4,210 respectively. As for the food and household expenses, both parties later agreed that these 2 items adding up together should be HK$10,000. Whereas the expenses for Phone Internet Cable, the agreed expenses should be HK$1,000 instead of HK$1,068. Therefore, the agreed sum for the general expenses is HK$31,943. 57.As to the children expenses, the wife said that she wanted the daughter to change school, if that is the case, then the school fee for the daughter will be HK$14,060 instead of HK$1,600 currently. 58.Therefore, if the daughter did not change school, the school fees for the son and the daughter is HK$15,660 instead of HK$28,120, and the said expenses will not be disputed by the husband. 59.Both parties also agreed that school books & stationery, transport to school for kids, tuition fees, clothing/shoes, lunch & pocket money, other transport and uniform should be HK$1,000, HK$1,200, HK$1,800, HK$4,000, HK$1,500, HK$200 and HK$800 respectively. 60.Both parties further agreed that the expenses for extra curricular activities, entertainment & presents and mobile phone & meals out of home should be adjusted. Now they agreed that the expenses for these 3 items should be HK$1,500, HK$2,000 and HK$3,600 respectively. 61.Both parties also agreed that the husband shall undertake to pay the children’s medical and dental expenses. With this undertaking in mind, both parties agreed that the total sum of the expenses for the children should be HK$33,260. 62.To complete the picture, both parties also agreed that the personal expenses of the wife which was stated in her Form E as HK$13,300 should be adjusted to HK$11,300. 63.For the MPS purpose, it is agreed that the general expenses, personal expenses and children expenses should be HK$31,943, HK$11,300 and HK$33,260 respectively, the total sum of these 3 expenses is HK$76,503. 64.After the aforesaid adjustment, my understanding of the wife’s case is that she will be responsible for her own personal expenses, and as to the general and children expenses for the total sum of HK$65,203, the husband shall share half of it i.e. HK$32,601.50. 65.The wife also stated that the husband had the ability to pay more, so she would like the daughter to transfer the school. Then, the said expenses will be adjusted to HK$77,663 which should be shared by the husband, and the share of the husband should be HK$38,831.50. 66.The reasonableness of the expenses under the general, personal and children will not be disputed, after the adjustment made by the parties. My understanding of the husband’s case is that he argued that the wife had the ability and the resource to cover all the aforesaid expenses, whereas he lacks the ability to pay his share. 67.Whether the husband’s assertion is true or not, will be discussed further. My observation is that the general expenses for the sum of HK$31,943 should be divided by 3 instead of 2 because these expenses covered the expenses for the wife and the 2 children. 68.Since the wife should be responsible for her own expenses, the share of the children under the item of the general expenses should be HK$21,295. The total sum for the children expenses should be HK$21,295 plus HK$33,260 or HK$45,720, which made it either HK$54,555 or HK$67,015. It is the sum of HK$54,555 or HK67,015, that should be shared by the husband and the wife. 69.My focus will therefore be ascertaining whether the husband is able to pay HK$33,507.50 or if not capable then whether he is capable to pay HK$27,277.50 per month. 70.Before I move to this topic, I shall first deal with the allegations raised by the husband in relation to the wife’s financial position. The husband alleged that the wife had removed the husband from HK company and she was now solely operating HK company. The husband’s case was that HK company being the family assets generated sufficient income to cover all the general, personal and children expenses. 71.Secondly, the husband said that the wife had transferred a lot of money from HK company to herself and also given large sum of money to the domestic helper. The husband said that the wife failed to provide full and frank disclosure of the various transfer, and the husband asked me to draw adverse inference that the wife had sufficient assets to cover all the immediate and reasonable needs of the household. 72.The wife stated in her submission that ever since 2014, she had been bearing the burden of paying the children’s and the household expenses, and ever since the husband moved to the USA to dedicate his entire time to running the business of LA company and stopping working for HK company, the husband had failed to contribute to the household expenses. 73.The husband’s case is that the family was solely supported by HK company. It is not disputed that HK company is the family asset, therefore if HK company had sufficient cash and assets or can generate sufficient income per month to cover the household expenses, I see no reason why HK company cannot continue to support the family expenses without resorting to the husband for MPS purpose. 74.However, it was the wife’s case that the business of HK company had been deteriorating. In addition to that, she stated in her affirmation that the husband had failed to repay HK$2 million debt to HK company, and that the husband also failed to reimburse HK company for the orders placed with the China suppliers, and the outstanding amount owed to HK company was US$236,677.25. 75.It was asserted by the husband that LA company was closed already. The husband in his affirmation stated that HK company would supply goods to LA company and LA company would sell the goods to its US customers. The husband also stated that the profit generated by HK company and LA company would be kept at the account of HK company in order to support the family and children expenses in Hong Kong. 76.The husband did not dispute that LA company had placed orders with HK company in the total sum of US$547,681.45 in the year of 2015 and had made payment to HK company in the sum of US$311,004.20, such that the outstanding payment payable by LA company to HK company was in the sum of US$236,677.25, because he admitted that it had always been the case that LA company owed money to HK company as arranged between the wife and the husband. 77.The husband also stated in his affirmation that HK company was the borrower of the 2 million loan from HSBC and there was no agreement or arrangement that the husband and/or LA company would be liable to the said loan. 78.The husband further stated that it was agreed by the wife and the husband that the purpose of making the said loan was to support the daily operation of HK company and to expand the watch business. 79.Now LA company was closed down, not only there is a non recoverable amount by HK company from LA company, the plan to expand the watch business through LA company was a failure in the end, and caused significant financial burden to HK company. 80.The husband also stated in his affirmation that from March 2015 to February 2016, the wife had transferred a total sum of HK$983,000 to her own personal account which was confirmed by the wife. In that case, it means that the wife was transferring on average HK$81,917 per month from HK company. 81.I trust that this sum per month would be sufficient to cover all her expenses including the family expenses, and that is why for MPS purpose, I consider that HK$76,503 is reasonable under paragraph 63 aforesaid mentioned. 82.The husband stated in his affirmation that the wife had been assisting him to operate HK company since it was incorporated, and that the wife was not familiar with the watch business at the beginning and he had taught her how to run the business. The husband also stated that the wife assisted him in daily business operation and the husband was responsible for sales and marketing. 83.The husband further stated that since November 2015, the wife revoked him from being an authorized signatory of the bank account of HK company and he was not allowed to enter into the office of HK company, and he was excluded from managing HK company and the daily operation of HK company was seriously damaged. 84.In addition to that, the husband stated in his submission that there was a Representative office in Shenzhen (hereinafter called “Shenzhen office”) and rent were paid by HK company. The previous role of the husband in HK company was to oversee the purchase price in China and Sales to those countries which he needed to travel to in order to meet buyers. The role of the wife was to oversee the accounts receivable from buyers and payable vendors and staff in HK and sales to female overseas buyers. 85.In that case, after the husband was denied of the access of the operation of HK company, I am not surprised to note that the wife had down sized HK company and also Shenzhen office and that the business of HK company had been deteriorating. 86.Since the husband was no longer in charge of the sales of HK company, I am also not surprised to note that the financial position of HK company is at stake which directly affected the wife’s ability to bear the burden of paying all the household expenses solely. 87.So my next question is: can the husband afford to pay HK$33,507.50 or if not, can he afford to pay HK$27,277.50 per month together with the undertakings he suggested? 88.The amount of the undertaking he suggested to pay which covers the medical and dental insurance for the children is in the sum of HK$1,500. If the daughter does not transfer school, the husband’s share of expenses will only be HK$27,277.50 per month. My focus will be whether the husband can afford to pay HK$27,277.50 or HK$33,507.50 together with the undertaking. Issue 2 Can the husband afford to pay these sums? The husband’s Financial Position 89.In the husband’s submission, he stated that the monthly expenses for him was HK$25,200, and he is currently employed by J Inc. as asserted by him. 90.During the hearing, the husband adjusted his monthly expenses to HK$25,000. Nevertheless, the wife suggested that the monthly expenses for the husband should be HK$21,400. The difference between them is only HK$3,600, and I do not consider that this is the major issue, because if the husband only receives HK$25,000 per month, I trust that in any event after fulfilling his undertaking to pay medical and dental insurance for the children, there will not be much left for him to pay the amount for MPS per month. 91.One of the key issues is in fact whether the husband can only earn HK$25,000 per month. My view is that if he could have earned more because of his capability, there is no reason why I should be restricted to his current earning as asserted by him, and it was also the wife’s submission during hearing that the husband could have earned more than he alleged. 92.In the husband’s affirmation and submission, he had given a brief history of how he set up HK company and also his experience in the watch business. He admitted that he had used his sister and the wife to hold HK company while he was the beneficial owner of HK company all along. He also admitted that to avoid dual taxation, it was arranged between the wife and the husband that he was the sole owner of LA company and the wife would act as the owner and the shareholder of HK company on his behalf. 93.In that case, I see no reason why he closed LA company and earned a salary from J Inc. which was only sufficient to cover his own expenses when he had good experience in the watch business, and all along he is responsible for sales. 94.My view is that the husband could have earned more than he asserted, and I am not convinced that the ability to pay by the husband should be confined to the asserted personal income only. 95.My view is that since the husband failed to repay the mortgage installment of Flat H, the mortgagee bank is going to foreclose Flat H, and the husband will have no choice but to let the mortgagee bank put Flat H to open market for sale in the near future so that the proceed of sale of Flat H could be used to repay the mortgagee bank for the outstanding mortgage installment. 96.By that time, any remaining proceed of the sale of Flat H after repayment to the mortgagee bank should be one of the resources that could be utilized by the husband to meet the expenses of the family household if he alleges that he is now unable to pay the children’s interim maintenance. 97.In the husband’s Form E, he stated that the value of the matrimonial home had to be ascertained including Flat H. According to the wife’s Form E, she stated that she estimated that the present market value of Flat H was HK$12,200,000, and the amount presently outstanding on mortgage was HK$5,988,330.93 as at the date of March 2016, so the net value will be around HK$6,200,000. 98.After taking into account of the aforesaid, I am prepared to make robust assumptions about the husband’s ability to pay. I am not confined to the mere say-so of the payer as to the extent of his income or resources. 99.Of the available or potential sources aforesaid mentioned, I am of the view that the husband is able to pay the wife HK$27,277.50 or HK$33,507.50 together with the undertakings he suggested as maintenance pending suit. 100.After considering all the circumstances of the case and the evidence received so far, I am prepared to make an interim maintenance order for the wife. 101.In paragraph 68, I found that the sum of HK$54,555 or HK67,015, should be shared by the husband and the wife. Because of the difference of the school fees of the son and the daughter, currently, the son’s expenses should be HK$33,507.50 whereas the daughter’s expenses should be HK$21,047.50, and these two sum should be shared by the husband and wife. 102.As a result, the son’s MPS payable by the husband per month should be HK$16,753.75 and the daughter’s MPS payable by the husband per month should be HK$10,523.75. 103.To round up the figure, the son’s MPS should be HK$16,800 per month, and the daughter’s MPS should be HK$10,600 per month, and the daughter’s MPS should be adjusted to HK$16,800 after she transfers school. 104.I am of the view that the MPS for the total sum of HK$33,600 together with the undertaking suggested by the husband is affordable by the husband. Issue 3 In the event that an amount is ordered what date should that part of the order take effect from? 105.The wife submitted that the maintenance pending suit be backdated to the Summons on 27th April 2016.I am not prepared to backdate the MPS payment to the date of April 2016. My view is that originally the MPS Summons had been adjourned sine die and the wife only restored the hearing subsequently so there was no urgent need at the time of April 2016, and that if HK company was financially sound, I see no reason why the wife could not rely on HK company to support the household expenses previously. 106.Since I am of the view that the husband could earn more than he asserted, I am prepared to give the husband time to pay his share of children maintenance to the wife after I granted order for MPS Summons. Therefore, my view is that the payment of the children’s interim maintenance should take effect from May 2017. 107.The wife in her submission stated that the husband should pay the monthly mortgage for Flat H and continue to pay the monthly mortgage installment of Flat H. I shall not deal with this issue as I was told that the mortgagee bank is going to foreclose Flat H. 108.If the husband chose not to pay the mortgage installment of Flat H, the proceed of sale of Flat H after deducting the amount owed to the mortgagee bank and whatever amount remaining payable to the husband should be paid to the Court as security for children’s maintenance pending the outcome of the result of the ancillary relief. 109.The wife should register the order against Flat H and put the mortgagee bank on notice of the husband’s obligation under this order. Order 110.Upon the husband undertaking to the court and to the wife to be responsible for providing medical and dental insurance for the children until further order: 111.It is ordered that
Costs 112.I will make a decree nisi that costs of this summons be costs in the cause of the trial of the ancillary relief, such order to be made absolute upon the expiration of 14 days.
Representation: The Petitioner acted in person The Respondent acted in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 791/2016