Why one S’pore man chose to have a “good divorce” that doesn’t pin blame on his ex for marital woes

Lawyers say the new option reduces acrimony in the divorce process, as it allows couples to jointly acknowledge that the marriage has broken down without requiring either spouse to be cast as the wrongdoer.

Gloria James-Civetta, head lawyer of Gloria James-Civetta & Co, said that if a spouse cites a fault-based fact, such as unreasonable behaviour or adultery, he or she has to set out their charges of such behaviour. And the other party may deny or counter those allegations.

She said: “This can place parties in the roles of accuser and the accused, and require them to revisit painful events in the marriage to establish or resist blame.

“Such allegations may heighten feelings of anger, humiliation and resentment, making it more difficult for the parties to communicate respectfully.”

Jessica Chow, PKWA Law Practice’s associate director of family law and probate department, said focusing on problem-solving instead of fault-finding also benefits children.

Chow said: “When parents are able to avoid an adversarial contest over blame, they are generally better able to communicate and work together on decisions affecting their children.”

In Singapore, the only legal ground for civil divorces is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

Divorce by mutual agreement is one of six facts that can be relied on to prove this.

There are three fault-based facts – adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour.

Besides that, there are also two non-fault-based facts, where a couple must have been separated for at least three years with consent to divorce or separated for at least four years if there is no consent.

Not an easy way out

But citing divorce by mutual agreement is not an easy way out, said Rajan Chettiar, managing director of Rajan Chettiar LLC.

Couples have to tell the Family Justice Courts in detail why their marriage broke down, what they did to try to save it and why it still cannot be salvaged, he said.

He added that divorce by mutual agreement is the only fact where the couple must show the attempts they have taken to mend their marriage.

Chow said that this includes attending marriage counselling or mediation, seeking advice from family, friends or religious leaders, or discussing their differences and making other efforts to improve their relationship.

She added: “If the Family Justice Courts is not satisfied that the parties have genuinely explored reconciliation and that those efforts have failed, or if it considers there remains a real prospect of reconciliation, it may delay or decline to grant the divorce.”

Previously, there were concerns that allowing for divorces by mutual agreement would make divorce easier and lead to more couples ending their marriages.

The latest figures suggest that this has not happened, and lawyers note that couples do not decide on divorce lightly. 

There were 5,288 civil divorces in 2025, down from 5,638 in 2024 and 5,649 in 2023.

Director of Integro Law Chambers Angelina Hing said: “It would never be the case where a party learns that it is easier to get a divorce and decides to get one.”

For Shiau, ending his marriage of four years was a difficult decision, given all the good times he and his former wife shared.

They had tried their best to make the marriage work, having attended 25 sessions of marriage counselling.

They also attended five sessions of discernment counselling – an option for couples on the brink of divorce – to help them decide whether to stay or end their marriage.

He said the discernment counselling helped him conclude that even after trying their best, further efforts to repair their relationship was futile.

Shiau said divorce by mutual agreement was a “humane” option, as it did not involve revisiting the faults and grievances in the marriage. Today, he and his former wife are still “cordial”.

He said: “The way I see it, if we can’t have a good marriage, at least have a good divorce.”