Man fails to get half of flat in divorce as court finds ex-wife was both breadwinner and homemaker

She said she settled his debts and financed his holidays, but he allegedly stole money from her on occasion.

The wife “vehemently” disputed the man’s purported contributions and gave a different account, saying she had borne the sole financial responsibility for the family as the man consistently refused to seek or keep a job.

She said she had to bear the financial costs of his failed business ventures, including unsuccessful attempts to be a vacuum cleaner salesman and real estate agent.

She also alleged that she had to settle his personal debts on multiple occasions.

The woman asserted that even though the man was at home, she remained responsible for managing the household and attending to all the children’s needs.

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

She said her husband interfered with her work by hiding her handbag, which contained her office keys and security pass, and visited her workplace to make baseless allegations in front of her colleagues.

Because he was unreliable, the woman said she was compelled to hire a maid to assist her. This led to further problems when she caught her husband kissing the helper, the woman alleged.

The man disputed this but acknowledged that a conflict did occur over this issue.

The children are estranged from their father as a result of his own unreasonable conduct towards them, the woman claimed.

The woman provided an email from the Housing Board confirming that the flat was balloted to the couple under the SAF Regulars/Reservists Scheme. This meant they were prioritised in the balloting process but there was no evidence that the flat was acquired at a cheaper price.

The woman also denied that the man had paid S$8,000 for the flooring, saying it was impossible due to his lack of money. She claimed to have borrowed from her employer and sisters for renovation costs.

The wife offered to refund money from the man’s Central Provident Fund that was used to buy the matrimonial flat, including interest. This was a sum of about S$16,000 as of August 2025, comprising the original contribution of about S$3,000 and accrued interest of about S$13,000.

The man alleged that his wife had actively discouraged their children from forming a bond with him and taught them to keep their distance. He also claimed that the children’s overseas studies was arranged without his knowledge and consultation.

However, the judge found that this was inconsistent with the man’s own statement at the hearing, where he stated that he had told his wife and daughter that there was no need to study overseas.

He also complained about not having his children’s addresses, but the judge said this undermined his claim of being heavily involved in the children’s care since birth.

DAUGHTER GIVES EVIDENCE AGAINST FATHER

The couple’s daughter gave evidence that her father would dress in business attire when leaving the home even though he had no job.

At home, he contributed minimally to household responsibilities, doing only his own laundry while creating an “oppressive home environment” where children were prohibited from making noise, the daughter said.

She described her mother’s demanding daily routine of working full-time to provide for the family, including paying her father’s debts, rushing home to cook dinner and teaching the children to help with household chores.

The daughter said her mother handled marketing and ensured the children had access to funds for their necessities. She also witnessed her father smothering her mother in a physical assault.

The daughter recalled that her father had left home due to their block undergoing upgrading works.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

District Judge Nicole Loh found the wife’s version significantly more credible and substantiated. Part of her account was also corroborated by her daughter.

“I am satisfied that throughout this lengthy marriage, the wife made substantial and multifaceted contributions to the family,” said the judge.

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

She said the man’s behaviour pattern suggests “someone who positioned himself as possessing superior moral standing and authority whilst neglecting his basic familial responsibilities”.

The husband’s contributions were “markedly limited in scope and consistency”, comprising the priority status in getting the flat, a “modest” CPF contribution of about S$3,000, and “intermittent and superficial” involvement in his children’s upbringing.

The wife’s contributions, in contrast, formed the “bedrock” of the family’s stability and welfare, said Judge Loh.

She 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,” said Judge Loh.

“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.”