Man, 90, fails to get maintenance from 89-year-old ex-wife after 64-year marriage
The woman claimed that she had financed their home alone while her husband contributed “nothing”. She also said that she gave him half of her pension after she retired.
The Family Justice Courts – comprising the Family Courts, Youth Courts and Family Division of the High Court – as seen on Nov 1, 2024. (File photo: CNA/Raydza Rahman)
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: A family court rejected a 90-year-old man’s claim for spousal maintenance from his 89-year-old wife, noting that both of them are in the twilight of their lives.
The court also noted that the man will receive more than S$2 million (about US$1.6 million) from the matrimonial pool, comprising the couple’s assets to be divided in the divorce, and his wife is a retiree living on a pension.
The former couple were married for more than 64 years and have three children, all aged above 60, a judgment published on Wednesday (Sep 16) stated. They were not named in the judgment, as is usual for a family court ruling.
Most of the value in the matrimonial pool came from their joint asset, a S$5.8 million house.
THE CASE
The couple married in January 1960 and were granted an interim judgment for divorce in September 2024.
There were no issues of custody or child maintenance since their children are adults.
Dealing with the division of matrimonial assets, Justice Dedar Singh Gill added about S$14,500 in the man’s name to the pool. Most of this is from his Central Provident Fund (CPF), Singapore’s mandatory social security savings scheme.
He added about S$80,000 from the woman’s assets to the pool, including almost S$20,000 in CPF.
The woman argued that she had contributed to 100 per cent of the matrimonial home and financed it alone.
She said she had bought their previous property under the Teacher’s Estate housing scheme, which provided homes for educators. The sale proceeds from this property were used fully to buy the matrimonial home, to which her husband contributed “nothing”.
The man sought a 50:50 division of all matrimonial assets, claiming to have contributed to both the Teacher’s Estate property and the matrimonial home.
However, the judge noted that neither side’s account was supported by documentary evidence.
INDIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS
The woman sought a ratio of 80:20 in indirect contributions in her favour, arguing that she bore virtually all the financial and non-financial burdens of the family throughout the marriage.
She said she was the main provider during the first half of the marriage when both of them worked, paying for the children’s tuition and courses, family vacations and a domestic worker to care for the children when she was at work.
She also said that she gave her son S$50,000 to start a business that failed, and footed the bills for her children’s weddings.
After she retired in 1992, she claimed that her husband had no income and contributed “nothing” while she supported the household from her pension of about S$2,400 a month.
She gave her husband half of this amount each month, she added.
She also said that she was the primary caregiver for her children, cooking for the family and supervising the various domestic helpers and overseeing the repairs and maintenance of the household.
The husband sought an equal or near-equal division of indirect contributions, claiming that until retirement, both parties had pooled their incomes in joint accounts.
From these, all the household expenses were paid. After retirement, he said the expenses were paid from their pooled savings in joint accounts, and thereafter from his wife’s joint accounts with their son and oldest daughter.
He said he did his “fair share of being involved in the care and upbringing of the children”.
Justice Gill said the indirect financial contributions for the first half of the marriage were difficult to determine, given the couple’s differing versions of events without objective evidence.
However, the position is clearer for the second half of the marriage after their retirement.
It was undisputed that the man had no income beyond his monthly annuity of S$485.75 from insurer NTUC Income, and that the only income stream was the woman’s monthly pension of about S$2,400, of which she gave her husband half.
The woman also produced payment records showing that she paid the property tax bills up to 2024, as well as receipts for household bills she continued to cover on her own.
WIFE CONTRIBUTED GREATER SHARE
The judge also found that the wife contributed the greater share in indirect non-financial contributions, with detailed evidence of her caregiving and homemaking.
She was the primary caregiver of her children from birth and even when she worked, helping them with their homework and managing their schooling and activities.
She also ran the household, cooked for the family, organised family gatherings, and trained and supervised the various domestic workers they hired.
“The husband, on the other hand, does no more than assert in general terms that he did his fair share,” Justice Gill said.
“He descends to no particulars of caring for the children, their schooling, their health or their emotional needs.
“I also consider it significant that the husband neither disputed most of what the wife says she did for the family nor offered any competing account of his own.”
He assessed indirect contributions at 70:30 in favour of the woman.
The woman sought a 2 per cent increase of her share of the matrimonial pool, saying that her ex-husband had illegally excluded her from the home from March 2025 and placed a padlock on the gate.
The man, however, claimed that his ex-wife and their oldest daughter moved out of their own accord.
Justice Gill noted that this complaint of illegal exclusion surfaced for the first time only in written submissions, and both parties would obtain substantial sums from the pool in any event. He declined to raise the woman’s share of the assets on this basis.
In total, the ratio across direct and indirect contributions was computed to be 60:40, in favour of the woman.
Accordingly, she was to get S$3.5 million, while her ex-husband obtained S$2.4 million.
The man sought maintenance as an incapacitated former husband under the Women’s Charter, pointing to his medical and mobility issues, his inability to earn a livelihood, his minimal income and his wife’s departure from the matrimonial home. This has left him to cover the home’s expenses alone.
If he did not get maintenance, the man asked for a lump sum equivalent to 5 to 10 per cent of his share of the matrimonial assets.
The judge rejected the man’s claim for spousal maintenance and his request for the lump sum payment.
He said that both parties are in the twilight of their lives, with neither having any earning capacity nor any expectations to improve their financial positions through work.
Both of them rely on monthly pensions or payouts as their financial source, and they will each have very substantial sums from the matrimonial pool, Justice Gill added.
The sum of more than S$2 million that the man will obtain is “more than sufficient to meet the needs of a 90-year-old retiree for the remainder of his life”.
“Once the division takes effect, he will be amply provided for. In these circumstances, I do not think an order for maintenance against the wife, herself an elderly retiree living on a pension, would be just or necessary.”
The man sought reimbursement from his ex-wife’s share for the property tax he paid on the house for the years of assessment 2025 and 2026, saying that she had paid nothing since moving out in March 2025.
The judge acknowledged that the man should not necessarily bear the entire property tax simply because he lives there, but found his argument for his ex-wife to pay the full bill untenable.
He said that the property tax for the two years must be borne equally by both parties.
The home is to be sold on the open market within six months, with them having joint conduct of the sale.
Each side will bear its own costs.
Source: CNA/ll(sf)
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
