APE v APF [2015] SGCA 47– A decision of the Court of Appeal in Singapore:
1.”An order for nominal maintenance, by its very terms, clearly preserves a wife’s right to apply for a variation of that maintenance order in the future should the need arise because there has been a material change in the circumstances.”
2. “In contrast, an order that there be no order on a wife’s application for maintenance is, in substance, a rejection of that application itself. Put simply, an order that there be no order on an application for maintenance must necessarily constitute a decision on that application and cannot, instead, be an order that puts everything in limbo or which “suspends” final judgment on the application, so to speak.”
However in ATE v ATD [2016] SGCA 2 the court stated that:
“What seems to us to be clear is this: The courts cannot – and ought not to – order nominal maintenance automatically or as a matter of course. As already alluded to above, the court must examine closely all the facts and circumstances of the case before deciding whether or not to award nominal maintenance in order to preserve the wife’s right to apply for maintenance in the future.”
For more information contact Singapore divorce or family lawyer Raphael Louis (Ray) or visit his website.