YAI v YAJ

YAI v YAJ

Section 69(5)(c) permits maintenance for an adult child who remains in education even if the child receives payments from work attachment; the court must assess whether maintenance is still necessary. The Father failed to prove the daughters work-attachment payments were sufficient to meet her reasonable expenses or that he had validly discharged his maintenance obligation by paying the child directly. Accordingly the Father is liable for arrears for the periods identified and must pay as ordered, and may not unilaterally redirect payments away from the care parent.

Citation
[2026] SGFC 38
Parties
Mother (care Parent, Applicant): YAI; Father (respondent): YAJ
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
19 March 2026
Case Number
MSS1268/2025
Procedural Posture
Family Court Maintenance Enforcement (mss No. 1268 of 2025) / Judgment Following Enforcement Hearing
Outcome
Applicants enforcement application granted in part; Father ordered to pay maintenance arrears and costs, and to comply with show-payment directions
Legal Topics
Maintenance Enforcement, Adult Child Maintenance Under S 69(5)(c), Work Attachment Income, Mode of Payment of Maintenance, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Maintenance Statutory Interpretation Evidence Maintenance Enforcement Adult Child Maintenance Under S 69(5)(c) Work Attachment Income Mode of Payment of Maintenance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YAI

Mother (care Parent, Applicant)

YAJ

Father (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Family Court Maintenance Enforcement (mss No. 1268 of 2025) / Judgment Following Enforcement Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 69(5)(c) of the Womens Charter requires maintenance to cease where an adult child receives payments from a work attachment as part of a diploma course
  2. 2 Whether payments made directly to a child or provision of an ATM card discharges a parent's obligation to pay maintenance to the care parent as required by court order
  3. 3 Who bears the burden of proof when a paying parent asserts that the child was in gainful employment and earned sufficient income to obviate maintenance

Ratio Decidendi

Section 69(5)(c) permits maintenance for an adult child who remains in education even if the child receives payments from work attachment; the court must assess whether maintenance is still necessary. The Father failed to prove the daughters work-attachment payments were sufficient to meet her reasonable expenses or that he had validly discharged his maintenance obligation by paying the child directly. Accordingly the Father is liable for arrears for the periods identified and must pay as ordered, and may not unilaterally redirect payments away from the care parent.

Court Disposition

Applicants enforcement application granted in part; Father ordered to pay maintenance arrears and costs, and to comply with show-payment directions

Orders

  • Total maintenance arrears assessed at SGD 14,480, set off against transfers to the daughter of SGD 320 resulting in net arrears of SGD 9,980 for the daughter portion and SGD 4,500 for the older son, total SGD 14,480
  • Arrears to be paid in four monthly instalments of SGD 3,620, payable by the fifth day of each month commencing 5 April 2026