SINGAPORE – The General Division of the High Court (Family Division) has ordered a 60:40 division of matrimonial assets, valued at over S4.4million,infavourofthehusband,ahigh−earningbankdirector.InajudgmentdeliveredbyJusticeChooHanTeck,thecourtalsoawardedthewifealumpsumofS144,000 for spousal maintenance but made no order for the husband to pay monthly child maintenance to her, permitting him to arrange expenses directly with their adult children.
The decision addressed contentious issues over the valuation of several assets, including an overseas property and the husband’s bonuses, while providing a detailed analysis of the appropriate division ratio for a 20-year, single-income marriage.
Background of the Case
The parties, Mr. XST (the “Husband”), 49, and Ms. XSU (the “Wife”), 54, were married on 23 December 2003. The Husband is a bank director with a monthly income of S$88,828.08, while the Wife has been a housewife throughout the marriage. An interim judgment for divorce was granted on 28 December 2023.

The couple has two children, a daughter aged 20 and a son aged 18. They had already agreed to joint custody, with care and control to the Wife, and for the Husband to arrange access directly with the children. The ancillary matters before the court were the division of assets, child maintenance, and spousal maintenance.
Disputes Over Matrimonial Assets
The court determined the total value of the matrimonial pool to be S$4,414,034.53. Several assets were in dispute:
- Indonesia Property: The Husband valued his share in an Indonesian villa at S1,629,477.19 (S2,199,794.21),supportedbyevidencethatthevillawasbeingrentedoutforapproximatelyS2,165.50 per night. Justice Choo accepted the Wife’s valuation, stating, “The Husband cannot on one hand argue that the property cannot be sold, then on the other hand, let it out for profit. It would be illusory to ignore the commercial reality that the property is receiving rental proceeds, regardless of the lack of permit.”
- Husband’s Bonus: The Wife argued that the Husband’s bonus for the financial year 2023/2024, paid in March 2024, should be pro-rated and included in the asset pool. The court agreed, citing the precedent in XPG v XPH [2025] SGHCF 45, and added a pro-rated sum of S$250,894.53 to the pool.
- Matrimonial Liabilities: The court included two housing loans (S153,080.23andS233,578.62) as matrimonial liabilities, finding no evidence that the Wife objected to them or that they were not used for the family’s benefit. However, credit card liabilities incurred by the Husband in May 2024, almost six months after the interim judgment, were excluded.
- Rolex Watch: The Husband claimed a Rolex watch he had given the Wife was a matrimonial asset. The court rejected this claim. Justice Choo remarked, “When a man gives his wife a watch in happier times of the marriage, it is surely given for love. I think a husband who earns S$88,828.08 a month should, if only to merit a measure of civility, forgo his claim for part of a watch given to his wife in such a time. But in the event that he does not, I record my finding that this watch, which he now covets, is not a matrimonial asset.”
The court also dismissed the Wife’s request to draw an adverse inference against the Husband for allegedly concealing assets. The judge found her claim to be a “bare assertion” without the necessary “substratum of evidence” required by law.
Court’s Analysis on the Division Ratio
The Husband’s counsel argued for a 65:35 division, citing BOR v BOS [2018] SGCA 78 and describing the 20-year marriage as “moderately lengthy.” Justice Choo pointed out that counsel had “overlooked the rest of that same paragraph,” which clarified that “moderately lengthy” referred to a range of 15-18 years.
Finding that a 20-year marriage exceeded that range, the court determined that a 40% share for the Wife was fair. Justice Choo noted, “Here, there is no doubt that the Wife was a dedicated stay home mother and wife. She took care of the family affairs and was present. There is no special factor that merits a higher percentage.”
Maintenance Orders
- Child Maintenance: Acknowledging the “significant disparity” in financial capabilities, the court ordered the Husband to bear 100% of the children’s expenses. However, both parties’ proposed figures for monthly expenses were rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence. Given the children’s ages, the court made no order for the Husband to pay a monthly sum to the Wife. Instead, it permitted the “Husband to agree personal expenses with the children directly.” The Husband remains responsible for all education-related expenses.
- Spousal Maintenance: The Wife claimed monthly expenses of S13,090.77,butthecourtfoundthatlessthan101,765,613.81) and her earning capacity from technical courses she had attended. It concluded by awarding a lump sum maintenance of S144,000,equivalenttoS3,000 per month for four years.
The parties were directed to submit on costs within 10 days.