A 90-year-old man has failed to obtain spousal maintenance from his 89-year-old former wife after their marriage of more than 64 years ended in divorce.
Instead, he will receive about S$2.36 million from the division of the couple’s matrimonial assets.
In a judgment issued on Wednesday, 16 September, High Court judge Dedar Singh Gill found that ordering the elderly woman, who is herself retired and living on a pension, to pay maintenance was neither necessary nor justified.
The couple married on 2 January 1960 and were granted an interim judgment for divorce on 4 September 2024. They have three children, all aged above 60.
Couple Had Nearly S$5.9 Million in Matrimonial Assets
Their matrimonial pool was valued at S$5,894,925.97.
By far the largest asset was their matrimonial home, valued at S$5.8 million.
Both parties gave different accounts of who had paid for the properties they owned during the marriage.
The wife said she had bought an earlier property under the Teacher’s Estate housing scheme and that the entire sale proceeds were later used to buy their current home, with her husband contributing nothing.
The husband said he had also contributed through retirement benefits and a lump-sum payment from his employer.
However, neither side had documents showing precisely how much each contributed.
Given the lack of records and the exceptional length of the marriage, during which both had worked for about half of it, the judge assessed their direct financial contributions equally at 50:50.
Wife Found to Have Contributed More to Household and Family
The court reached a different conclusion when looking at indirect contributions, such as paying household expenses and caring for the family.
The wife, who had worked as a teacher before retiring in 1992, said she paid for expenses including domestic help, her children’s tuition, family trips and the children’s weddings.
After retirement, she received a monthly pension of S$2,402.84 and gave her husband S$1,200 each month.
The husband also received a monthly annuity of S$485.75.
The wife produced payment records showing that she had paid property tax through 2024, as well as household expenses such as utilities, the helper’s salary and repairs.
She was also found to have been the children’s primary caregiver while working and to have managed the household, cooked for the family and supervised their domestic helpers.
The judge assessed their indirect contributions at 70:30 in the wife’s favour.
Combining the direct and indirect contributions resulted in an overall 60:40 division.
The wife will therefore receive about S$3.54 million, while the husband will receive about S$2.36 million.
Husband Asked Ex-Wife to Pay Maintenance
The husband also sought maintenance under the Women’s Charter as an incapacitated former husband.
Under Section 113 of the Women’s Charter, a court can order a woman to pay maintenance to an incapacitated husband or former husband.
The 90-year-old cited his medical and mobility problems, inability to work, limited recurring income and the expenses he had been paying after his wife left the matrimonial home.
Alternatively, he asked for an additional lump sum equivalent to 5 to 10 per cent of his share of the matrimonial assets.
The court rejected both requests.
When deciding maintenance, the Women’s Charter requires the court to consider factors such as each person’s income, property, financial resources, needs, age and the length of the marriage.
Justice Gill noted that neither party had earning capacity at their age and both depended on pension or other regular payouts.
Crucially, both would also receive substantial assets from the divorce.
The judge found that the husband’s share of more than S$2 million would adequately provide for him, while his former wife was also an elderly retiree relying on a pension.
S$5.8 Million Home to Be Sold
The couple’s matrimonial home must now be sold on the open market within six months at no less than the S$5.8 million valuation adopted by the court.
If it is not sold within that period, it is to be sold to the highest offeror.
The husband had also asked to recover property tax for 2025 and 2026 from his former wife’s share because he had paid the bills after she moved out.
The court instead ordered them to split the property tax equally, noting that both continued to own the property in equal shares during that period.
Each party will bear their own legal costs.
