Read the full judgment text of FCMC 17300/2013 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 4 June 2014 before Deputy District Judge S. G. Chan.
Matrimonial Causes – Interim Maintenance – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance – Ability to Pay – Travel Expenses – Best Interests of Children – District Court – This case concerns an application by the Petitioner for interim maintenance for her two children under Section 5 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap 192. The Petitioner sought maintenance at a rate of USD 1,500 per month, later reduced to an open offer of USD 1,000 per month, backdated to the date of the Petition. The Respondent, residing in Thailand, offered HK$1,000 per month. The main issues were whether the Husband had the ability to pay interim maintenance and whether his travel expenses for access should take precedence over maintenance contributions. The Court applied the principle of reasonableness and fairness, citing HJFG v KCY [2012] 1 HKLRD 95 and TL v ML [2006] 1 FLR 1263. The Court noted that interim maintenance applications are approached on a broad-brush basis without detailed examination of means. The Husband claimed an income of approximately HK$19,580 per month but had monthly expenses of HK$22,475. The Wife alleged the Husband had undisclosed assets, including inheritance and bank deposits. The Court found the Husband's disclosure deficient and likely had access to financial resources sufficient to cover his spending. The Court held that the Husband's travel and hotel expenses should not take precedence to his contribution towards the reasonable needs of the children. The Court ordered the Respondent to pay interim maintenance of USD 750 or HK$5,800 per month, commencing 3rd December 2013. Costs were ordered to be no order as to costs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of meeting children's needs over parental travel preferences in interim maintenance applications. The Court also noted the children's special needs, including one diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, requiring special attention and treatments. The parties had incurred disproportionate legal fees, and the Court hoped for a speedy resolution to avoid protracted litigation. The order is nisi and will be made absolute within 14 days unless varied. The case highlights the court's power to make robust assumptions about ability to pay when disclosure is deficient. The maintenance amount reflects roughly 27% of the children's specific monthly expenses. The Court adopted a broad brush approach to achieve fairness without going through a detailed examination of the parties' respective means. Any overpayment or underpayment can be corrected at the substantive hearing. The Court considered the standard of living enjoyed by the parties previously and the reasonable and immediate needs of the children. The Husband's lifestyle was inconsistent with his alleged earnings. The Court found it fair and reasonable for the Husband to contribute to the specific monthly expenses of the said children. The judgment provides guidance on interim maintenance applications in the District Court. The parties are represented by Weir and Associates and Withers respectively. The hearing was held in Chambers and not open to the public. The judgment was delivered on 4 June 2014. The case number is FCMC 17300 / 2013. The Judge is Deputy District Judge S. G. Chan. The Petitioner is AYST and the Respondent is DT. The children are RBT and DT Jr. The Wife earns HK$46,314.62 per month. The Husband earns THB50,000 equivalent to HK$11,817.24 per month plus benefits. The children's expenses are HK$20,980 per month. The Wife's expenses are HK$27,070 per month. The total monthly expenses for herself and the children are about HK$48,050. The Husband received an inheritance of approximately USD166,432.64. The Husband also receives an average income of USD1,000 per month from part-time work. The Husband's monthly expenses amount to HK$22,475. The Wife's mother owns the Kowloon property where the family resides. The Husband does not dispute the specific monthly expenses for the said children. The Husband argues he is unable to afford to pay regularly towards the said children’s maintenance. The Wife claims the Husband is the owner or partner of the company. The Wife believes the Husband has access to more funds than he has disclosed. The Court found the Husband's case difficult to accept. The Court ordered the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner interim maintenance for the said children in the total sum of USD 750 or HK$5,800 per month. The payment shall be credited by the Respondent into a bank account designated by the Petitioner. The order is backdated to 3 December 2013. The order is payable on the 3rd day of each succeeding calendar month. The order is until further order. The costs order is no order as to costs. The certificate for Counsel is granted. The order is nisi. The order will be made absolute within 14 days.
Legal issues: Ability to pay interim maintenance · Travel expenses vs maintenance contribution
Outcome: Interim maintenance order made in favour of Petitioner.