Divorce Lawyer Singapore: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Adverse Inference and Spousal Maintenance in XPA v XPB [2025] SGHCF 57

Introduction

When couples go through divorce in Singapore, two of the most contested issues are the division of matrimonial assets and spousal maintenance. The recent High Court decision in XPA v XPB [2025] SGHCF 57 provides valuable guidance on how the Family Justice Courts deal with disputed assets, hidden bank accounts, and claims for maintenance in long marriages.

This case, which involved a marriage of thirty-seven years, illustrates three important principles. First, it shows how the court decides whether a marriage should be regarded as a single-income or dual-income marriage. Second, it demonstrates when the court will draw an adverse inference against a spouse who fails to provide full financial disclosure. Third, it clarifies why spousal maintenance may not be ordered if the wife already receives a substantial share of the matrimonial assets.

For anyone considering divorce in Singapore, this judgment highlights the importance of proper financial disclosure and realistic expectations about both asset division and maintenance.

Background

The parties were married in 1986 and had two daughters. The Wife, aged sixty-three, was a homemaker for long periods but also worked at times in the Husband’s businesses. The Husband, aged sixty-six, managed several companies.

The Wife filed for divorce in 2022 and an Interim Judgment was granted in 2024 after the court found that the Husband had behaved unreasonably. The High Court then had to decide on two questions: (a) how to divide the couple’s matrimonial pool valued at approximately 6.48 million dollars; and (b) whether the Wife should be awarded spousal maintenance.

Identification of Matrimonial Assets

The sole jointly held asset was the matrimonial home, which the parties agreed to value at 845,000 dollars.

The Husband’s undisputed assets were worth approximately 1.62 million dollars. However, the Wife successfully argued that further amounts should be included. These comprised: (a) 43,317.98 dollars from a UOB corporate account closed when the Husband’s company was struck off; (b) deferred income of 55,090 dollars from Company X and 1,666.67 dollars from Company Z; (c) loans to his companies totalling 1.19 million dollars, which were matrimonial funds not yet repaid; and (d) Central Depository (CDP) investments worth more than 1.15 million dollars, despite his argument that these came from inheritance. The court held that he failed to produce sufficient proof to exclude them.

The Husband also withdrew substantial sums from his accounts and CPF when divorce was imminent. These withdrawals were clawed back under the principle established in TNL v TNK, which requires substantial sums spent without the other spouse’s consent to be restored to the pool.

The Wife’s assets included approximately 511,754.35 dollars in CPF, bank accounts, and insurance. Her attempt to exclude pre-marital CPF balances was rejected as those funds had been used for the matrimonial home. Fixed deposits in the daughter’s name were partly restored to the pool, amounting to 31,155 dollars, while her credit card debts were not deducted since they were not proven to exist as at the Interim Judgment date.

Dissipation of Assets and the TNL Dicta

The Court reaffirmed the principle in TNL v TNK. Where divorce proceedings are imminent, any substantial sums withdrawn without the other spouse’s consent must be returned to the matrimonial pool regardless of motive. This remains the case even if the sums were spent innocently or for family benefit.

On the facts, the Court restored 239,549.24 dollars withdrawn from the Husband’s POSB account, 143,582.31 dollars withdrawn from his Standard Chartered account, and 76,788.50 dollars withdrawn from his CPF to purchase a CPF Life Premium just one month before Interim Judgment.

Adverse Inference and Hidden Accounts

The Husband failed to disclose complete UOB bank statements from July 2022 onwards. The Court found that this constituted a prima facie case of concealment of assets.

The Court therefore applied two approaches. First, under the quantification approach, specific sums proven to exist were added back, including (a) 189,986.35 dollars deposited into a UOB savings account, (b) 32,604.31 dollars withdrawn from a UOB fixed deposit, and (c) 114,170.82 dollars withdrawn from a UOB current account. Second, under the uplift approach, the Wife was granted an additional five per cent of the total matrimonial pool to reflect the risk of hidden assets.

This dual application demonstrates that where disclosure is incomplete, the court may penalise a party twice: once by restoring amounts to the pool and again by granting the other spouse a higher percentage share.

Classification of the Marriage

The Husband contended that the marriage was a dual-income marriage to which the structured approach in ANJ v ANK should apply, on the basis that the Wife had worked for many years. The Court disagreed.

The Court held that the Wife was the primary caregiver and homemaker. She left employment for eight years to raise the children, and even when she worked, she earned nominal salaries in the Husband’s companies and continued managing the household. Both adult children provided statutory declarations confirming that the Wife carried the homemaking responsibilities while the Husband rarely did housework.

Accordingly, the Court classified the relationship as a long single-income marriage, applying the principles from TNL v TNK. The starting point was an equal division of assets.

Final Division of Assets

The total matrimonial pool was valued at 6,489,832.92 dollars. Equal division would have given each spouse 50 per cent.

After applying the five per cent uplift for adverse inference, the final ratio was 45 per cent to the Husband and 55 per cent to the Wife. This translated to 2.92 million dollars for the Husband and 3.57 million dollars for the Wife.

The Wife was awarded the matrimonial home valued at 845,000 dollars. The Husband was ordered to pay her 2,096,653.31 dollars in cash within three months, representing her share less her sole assets and the home. Both parties retained their sole name assets, and the Husband was required to vacate the home within three months.

Spousal Maintenance

The Wife sought lump sum maintenance of 180,000 dollars or periodic maintenance of 3,000 dollars per month. The Court declined both requests.

The Court held that the Wife would be financially secure since she would receive the matrimonial home and more than 2 million dollars in cash. Maintenance is intended to preserve a standard of living but not to create long-term dependency where a spouse is already financially secure. In this case, the Court preferred a clean break.

Key Legal Takeaways

The judgment highlights several important principles in Singapore divorce law.

• First, where a spouse fails to give full financial disclosure, the Court may apply both the quantification approach and the uplift approach. This can significantly disadvantage the non-disclosing party.
• Second, even if a spouse has worked during the marriage, the Court may still classify the marriage as single-income if her role was primarily that of homemaker and caregiver. This classification tends towards equal division.
• Third, claims that assets came from inheritance must be proven with clear documentary evidence and proper tracing. Bare assertions will not suffice.
• Fourth, substantial withdrawals made without consent when divorce is imminent will be clawed back into the matrimonial pool under the TNL dicta.
• Finally, spousal maintenance is not automatic. Where the Wife receives substantial assets, the Court may decide that no further maintenance is required.

Conclusion

The decision in XPA v XPB [2025] SGHCF 57 underscores the importance of transparency, documentation, and proper legal strategy in divorce proceedings. For spouses, it demonstrates that concealing assets or dissipating funds without consent will ultimately backfire. For practitioners, it reinforces that homemaking contributions in long marriages are given equal weight to financial contributions.

At IRB Law LLP, our experienced team of divorce lawyers in Singapore regularly advises clients on asset division, spousal maintenance, and all aspects of family law. Whether you are considering divorce, negotiating settlement terms, or preparing for contested proceedings, we can guide you with clear and practical advice.