S'pore man, 90, fails to get maintenance from ex-wife, 89: Judge says his S$2.4 million share enough for rest of his life

A 90-year-old man, who sought spousal maintenance from his 89-year-old former wife, has had his claim rejected by a family court in Singapore, with the judge noting that both of them are in "the twilight of their lives".

In a judgement published on Sep. 16, the judge said both parties would receive substantial sums following the division of their matrimonial assets, with the man set to receive about S$2.4 million.

The sum was "more than sufficient to meet the needs of a 90-year-old retiree for the remainder of his life", the judge said.

Assets in matrimonial pool

The couple had been married for more than 64 years and have three children.

They were granted an interim judgement for divorce in September 2024, and there were no issues of custody or child maintenance since their children are all aged 60 and above.

The couple’s only jointly owned asset was their matrimonial home, valued at about S$5.8 million.

Assets held in the man's name and included in the matrimonial pool were valued at about S$14,500, largely comprising his Central Provident Fund savings.

About S$80,000 in assets belonging to the ex-wife were also included in the pool, including almost S$20,000 in CPF savings.

The ex-wife claimed that she had contributed entirely to the purchase of the matrimonial home.

She said she had previously bought a property under the Teacher's Estate housing scheme, and that the proceeds from its sale were used to purchase the couple's matrimonial home.

The man disputed this, arguing that he had contributed towards both properties.

As such, he sought an equal division of all the matrimonial assets.

The judge noted, however, that neither party’s account was supported by documentary evidence.

Ex-wife argued that she was the main provider

The ex-wife sought an 80:20 division of the matrimonial assets in her favour, arguing that she had borne virtually all the family’s financial and non-financial responsibilities throughout the marriage.

She said that during the first 32 years of the marriage, she was the main financial provider.

Among other things, she paid for a domestic helper to care for the children, and also paid for their tuition, courses, weddings, and family holidays.

She also gave their son S$50,000 to start a business, which later failed, she said.

She added that following her retirement in 1992, she funded the household from a monthly pension of about S$2,400, half of which she gave to her ex-husband.

The ex-wife also said she was the children’s primary caregiver.

Her responsibilities included cooking for the family, engaging and supervising domestic helpers, managing the household, paying her son’s medical bills, and organising outings and meals for the children and her ex-husband’s extended family.

The ex-husband sought an equal or near-equal division based on their indirect contributions.

He said that until their retirement, the couple had pooled their incomes in joint accounts.

After retirement, household expenses were paid from their pooled savings and subsequently from joint accounts the ex-wife held with their son and eldest daughter.

He also said he had done his "fair share" in caring for and bringing up the children.

Ex-husband "does no more than assert in general terms that he did his fair share"

The judge said the parties’ indirect financial contributions during the first half of their marriage were difficult to determine because of their differing accounts and the lack of objective evidence.

However, the position was clearer for the second half of the marriage, after both parties had retired, the judge said.

It was undisputed that the ex-husband had no income other than a monthly annuity of S$485.75 from insurer NTUC Income.

The ex-wife's monthly pension of about S$2,400 was the couple’s only other income stream, and she gave half of it to her ex-husband.

The ex-wife also produced records showing that she had paid the property tax bills up to 2024, as well as household bills she continued to pay herself.

On indirect non-financial contributions, the judge found that the ex-wife had made the greater contribution.

She provided detailed evidence of her role as the children’s primary caregiver from birth.

Even while working, she helped them with their homework and managed their schooling and activities.

She also ran the household, cooked for the family, organised gatherings, and trained and supervised the domestic helpers they employed.

"The husband, on the other hand, does no more than assert in general terms that he did his fair share," said the judge. "He descends to no particulars of caring for the children, their schooling, their health or their emotional needs."

The judge also noted that the husband did not dispute most of the ex-wife's account of what she had done for the family, nor provide a competing account of his own contributions.

He assessed the parties’ indirect contributions at 70:30 in favour of the ex-wife.

Ex-husband illegally excluded her from the matrimonial home

The ex-wife also alleged that her former husband had illegally excluded her from the matrimonial home from March 2025 by placing a padlock on the gate.

On this basis, she sought a 2 per cent increase in her share of the matrimonial assets.

However, the ex-husband argued that his ex-wife and their eldest daughter had moved out of their own accord.

The judge noted that the allegation of illegal exclusion was raised for the first time in written submissions.

He also considered that both parties would receive substantial sums from the matrimonial pool regardless.

As such, he declined to increase the ex-wife's share.

Division of assets at 60:40

Taking into account the parties’ direct and indirect contributions, the overall division was assessed at 60:40 in favour of the ex-wife.

The ex-wife was awarded about S$3.5 million, while the ex-husband was to receive about S$2.4 million.

The ex-husband subsequently sought maintenance as an incapacitated former husband under the Women’s Charter.

He cited his medical and mobility issues, inability to earn a livelihood, minimal income and the fact that the ex-wife had left the matrimonial home, leaving him to meet its expenses alone.

Alternatively, he sought a 5 to 10 per cent increase in his share of the matrimonial assets as a lump sum in lieu of spousal maintenance.

The judge rejected both requests.

He said both parties were "in the twilight of their lives", with neither having any earning capacity or realistic expectation of improving their financial position through employment.

He noted that the pair relied on monthly pensions or other payouts as their sources of income, and both would receive substantial sums from the matrimonial pool.

"The husband alone will take more than S$2,000,000 from the matrimonial pool," said the judge. "That is a sum more than sufficient to meet the needs of a 90-year-old retiree for the remainder of his life."

As such, he found that an order for maintenance against the ex-wife, who was a retiree living on a pension, would not be just or necessary.

Both parties to bear their own costs

The ex-husband also sought reimbursement from the ex-wife's share for property tax he had paid for the 2025 and 2026 years of assessment.

He argued that she had paid nothing towards the property tax after moving out in March 2025.

The judge rejected the argument that the ex-husband should bear the full tax simply because he lived in the property, or that the ex-wife should bear it because she had moved out.

The couple continued to own the matrimonial home as tenants-in-common in equal shares even after the ex-wife moved out, he noted.

The property tax for the 2025 and 2026 years of assessment would therefore be borne equally by both parties, he said.

The judge also ordered that each party bear their own legal costs for the ancillary matters.

The matrimonial home is to be sold on the open market within six months, with both parties having joint conduct of the sale.