SHE refused to share custody of their son with her estranged husband because of his immoral lifestyle.

He had told her that he was having an affair with another woman.

But that was not all.

She had also found out that he is bisexual and was involved in sexual activities with other men.

Their marriage was already in trouble when she found out, and he had moved out of their home.

Mary had never imagined, when she got to know him, that Jim could be bisexual.

These are not their real names, which we are not publishing because it might indirectly reveal their son's identity. That is prohibited under the Children and Young Persons Act.

The couple, both foreigners, got married in 2000.

In 2007, they filed for divorce, each claiming the other person was unreasonable.

According to court documents, Mary, then a housewife, wanted sole custody of their son, who is autistic.

She argued that Jim's bisexual lifestyle would expose their son to immoral influences.

Jim, a technical manager earning nearly $14,500 a month, did not dispute this.

His lawyer, Mr Louis Lim, admitted to the court that Jim was 'not ordinary'.

Mary declined to be interviewed for this report.

In her affidavit, she said she was living in a neighbouring country and working as a hotel receptionist when she met Jim, who was a guest there.

Begged on bended knees

 She said he wooed her and begged her on bended knees to marry him.

She said she agreed, though her parents were against it, because she believed that he was a good and sincere man.

They moved to Singapore, got married and bought an apartment here.

After three years of marriage, she gave birth to their only child.

She said their marriage was initially a loving one. He wrote her poems on their anniversaries, gave her a new ring and bought her other jewellery.

He also took her on annual holidays to destinations in Europe and Asia.

But she claimed that once their son was born, they suddenly had sex less often.

Then, on New Year's day in 2007, she claimed he told her he no longer loved her.

Mary said in her affidavit that Jim had told her he had a mistress, who had two kids from a previous marriage, and who was willing to take part in kinky sex with him.

Mary said he left their matrimonial home on 29 Jan 2007 to live with his lover.

She said that after Jim left her, she found evidence of him cross-dressing and taking part in perverted sexual activity.

She claimed he had advertised himself on gay websites and listed two sites in her affidavit.

Can't take care of son

Mary, who was represented by Mr Dennis Singham, also argued that Jim was unable to take care of their son because of the child's special needs.

Jim did not dispute this either.

On 30 Sep last year, district judge Khoo Oon Soo ordered Jim to pay a total of $3,000 a month as maintenance - $1,000 for Mary and $2,000 for their son.

The amount would be due to her from 1 Jul last year and on the first day of each month.

He also awarded her costs at $2,000.

Mr Khoo noted the income gap between the couple was very large.

But he disagreed with Mary that Jim would not be a good father because of his bisexuality.

He said there was no evidence Jim would not be able to contribute to the welfare of his son, especially in the areas of education and health.

He added: 'I was also of the view there was no evidence to suggest that (Jim) with his lifestyle could not be a good father.

'I was, therefore, of the view that the child should not be deprived of the father's inputs on these areas as he grows up.'

But Mr Khoo allowed Jim only supervised access to the boy, to address Mary's fear that her son would be exposed to the father's bisexual lifestyle.

In dealing with the question of the couple's matrimonial home, Mr Khoo noted that Jim had not disclosed all his assets relating to his bank accounts.

Mr Khoo ordered the net sale proceeds be divided with 75 per cent going to Jim and 25 per cent to Mary.

The New Paper understands that the apartment was sold for $830,000.

As for maintenance, Jim had been paying $300 a month as interim maintenance for the child, in addition to all his school and therapy fees, major medical expenses and hospitalisation.

At the hearing, he offered $2,000 a month for the child. He was unwilling to offer any maintenance for Mary.

She had asked for $6,000 a month for her and the child.

If the matrimonial home was transferred to her, she would agree to reduce maintenance to $4,000 per month.

If Jim was unwilling to do this, she had an alternative: He should pay her a lump sum of $400,000 as a 'clean break'.

Mr Khoo noted that the basis for this and the calculation were not given.

Mary now works at a hotel, earning $800 a month.

She was not happy with the amount awarded to her and filed an appeal through her lawyer.

It was heard before Justice Judith Prakash at the High Court.

On 29 Oct, Ms Prakash ordered Jim to pay Mary an additional $2,000 a month so she now gets $3,000 a month in maintenance for herself.

Their son will continue to get $2,000 a month.

This article was first published in The New Paper on Jan 5, 2008.