Man seeks 50% of flat after initiating divorce, ends up with 10% as S’pore court finds ex-wife was both breadwinner & homemaker

A woman in Singapore was granted 90 per cent of her matrimonial flat by a family court after the judge found she was both the primary breadwinner and primary homemaker throughout her marriage.

The ruling comes after her husband, who filed for divorce, sought at least half of the matrimonial flat on the basis of his non-financial contributions as a self-described house husband.

According to a judgment made available on Mar. 20, the couple had been married for almost 48 years when the husband initiated divorce proceedings in January 2024.

Both parties, who were in their late seventies at the time of the hearing, have two adult children in their forties.

Husband's claims

The husband acknowledged that his contributions to the marriage were non-financial but argued that he had sacrificed career opportunities to care for the children and take on the role of a house husband.

He claimed to have managed the children's emotional development, education and daily well-being, mediated between the wife and the domestic helper, and provided his wife with the emotional stability to focus on her career through his presence at home.

He also cited his national service status as having helped secure the matrimonial flat at a favourable price, and claimed to have personally contributed S$8,000 towards marble flooring in the home.

He further alleged that his wife had discouraged the children from bonding with him and had arranged for their overseas education without his knowledge.

He also claimed to have endured his wife's controlling behaviour, including being threatened at knife point, which led him to file Personal Protection Order (PPO) application against her and eventually move out of the home.

On the basis of these contributions, he sought at least an equal share of the flat.

Wife's contributions

The wife vehemently disputed her husband's characterisation of his role in the family.

She had worked as a senior customer service Officer for 39 years before retiring in 2008, with a final monthly salary of around S$5,000.

Throughout the marriage, she maintained that she was the sole breadwinner, as her husband refused to seek stable employment after his last recorded job in 1995, when he earned a gross income of over S$1,000.

She testified that despite his unemployment, she remained the primary caregiver — managing the household, overseeing the children's education, and handling daily domestic responsibilities.

When she sought his assistance, he would either ignore her or dismissively tell her to ask God for help.

The wife also alleged that she had to bear the costs of her husband's failed business ventures, including unsuccessful stints as a vacuum cleaner salesman and real estate agent.

She further claimed he misappropriated household funds for personal use and that she had to settle his debts.

The husband also stole money from her on occasion, she said.

She said his interference extended to her professional life.

He would hide her work pass and office keys, obstruct the delivery of appliances during her working hours, and visit her workplace to make baseless allegations in front of her colleagues.

The wife was also compelled to hire a domestic helper despite limited financial means due to her husband's alleged unreliability at home.

However, the arrangement led to further problems when she caught her husband kissing the helper.

The man disputed this, though he acknowledged that a conflict did arise over the matter.

Disputed the husband's claims

The wife maintained that the children's estrangement from their father was a result of his own unreasonable conduct towards them, not any effort on her part to discourage a relationship.

On the matter of the matrimonial flat, she provided an email from the Housing and Development Board confirming that the property had been balloted under the SAF Regulars/Reservists Scheme, which gave the couple priority in the balloting process.

However, there was no evidence that this translated into a lower purchase price.

She also disputed his claim of having contributed S$8,000 towards the marble flooring, saying it was implausible given his lack of finances.

She claimed that she borrowed from her employer and her two older sisters for the renovation costs.

The wife also offered to refund the husband's CPF monies used in purchasing the flat, including accrued interest — a sum totalling approximately S$16,000, comprising an original contribution of about S$3,000 and interest of around S$13,000 as at August 2025.

Daughter provided evidence

In an affidavit detailing her childhood, the couple's daughter gave evidence that her father would dress in business attire when leaving the home even though he had no job.

She described him as having contributed minimally to the household, while creating a restrictive home environment where children were prohibited from making noise.

She recounted how they were subject to arbitrary rules based on his views regarding vanity and morality.

In contrast, the daughter described her mother's daily routine as demanding, noting that she not only had to work full-time to provide financially for the family, but would also rush home to cook dinner.

She said her mother had taught the children to assist with housework chores, handled household marketing, and ensured that the children had access to money for their daily needs during her working hours.

The daughter also said she personally witnessed her father physically assaulting her mother by smothering her.

She recalled that her father had left the home during upgrading works to their block of flats — an account inconsistent with the husband's claim that he had been denied access by his wife for 30 to 35 years.

Court's findings

The judge found the wife's version significantly more credible and substantiated, and partly corroborated by her daughter.

She described the wife's contributions as "comprehensive and continuous", forming the "bedrock" of the family’s stability and welfare.

In contrast, "whilst the husband's unemployment enabled him to be physically available at home, the evidence fails to establish that he contributed meaningfully to either household management or childcare responsibilities," she said.

"The employment of a domestic helper when there are limited financial resources lends credence to this."

With regard to the husband's claims, the judge noted that his behaviour suggested "someone who positioned himself as possessing superior moral standing and authority whilst neglecting his basic familial responsibilities."

His contributions were found to be limited to the priority balloting status for the flat, a CPF contribution of approximately S$3,000, and what the judge described as "intermittent and superficial" involvement in the children's upbringing.

The husband's claim that the children's overseas education had been arranged without his knowledge was also called into question by the judge.

The judge noted that it was inconsistent with his own statement at the hearing, in which he said he had told his wife and daughter there was no need to study overseas.

She further noted that the husband's complaint about not having his children's addresses undermined his assertion of having been deeply involved in their upbringing since birth.

The judge ultimately granted 90 per cent of the flat to the wife and 10 per cent to the husband.

During the hearing, the man had requested that the wife purchase his share of the flat back from the market if she wanted to keep it.

The judge agreed that this was fair and gave the order for it.

"This was not a typical single-income marriage where one party discharged a breadwinning role and the other discharged a homemaker role," the judge said.

"In the current case, only one spouse, the wife, shouldered the dual burden of both being the primary financial provider and primary homemaker and caregiver. This concentration of both direct and indirect contributions in a single party over a long marriage represents an extraordinary imbalance that must also be properly reflected in the resulting division."

Top photo from Google Maps