Grounds For Divorce

There is only one ground for divorce that may be relied on by a married couple in Singapore – that of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. In addition to this ground, the court would also need to be satisfied that it would be just and reasonable to grant the divorce, having regard to all relevant circumstances. 

As a threshold requirement, an individual is generally permitted to file for divorce after three years have passed since the registration of the marriage. In special circumstances, such as exceptional hardship suffered by a plaintiff or exceptional depravity on the part of the defendant, the court may allow an application for divorce to be made within the first three years of marriage. The requirement enshrines the sanctity of marriage in Singapore, and the representation of marriage as a serious obligation to be undertaken by both parties. 

There are presently five “facts” that parties may rely on to establish an irretrievable breakdown of their marriage:

• one party (“X”) has committed adultery, and the other party (“Y”) finds it intolerable to live with X;
• X has behaved in such a way that Y cannot reasonably be expected to live with X;
• X has deserted Y for a continuous period of two or more years immediately before the application for divorce;
• the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of three or more years and  consent to a divorce being granted by the court; or
• the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of four or more years (regardless of either party’s consent).

It is important to mention that proof of adultery would require Y to establish that sexual intercourse has taken place between X and a third party. In this respect, intimate messages or improper conduct between X and a third party may be insufficient, unless the circumstances of the case are such that adultery might reasonably be assumed as a result of an opportunity presented for its occurrence. Nonetheless, the improper association of a husband/wife with a third party may be relied on as a circumstance giving rise to the allegation that one has behaved in such a way that the other cannot reasonably be expected to live with them.

The party commencing the divorce should also take note of the six-month “grace period” afforded by the Women’s Charter 1961. Should the parties continue to live together as husband and wife for a period exceeding six months following the incidents (of adultery or unreasonable behaviour) relied on, other incidents may need to be provided and relied on.

The Women’s Charter (Amendment) Bill No 43/2021 provides for the inclusion of a sixth “fact” that may be relied on by the parties – divorce by mutual agreement, ie, the parties must state in writing that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, the efforts that they have made to reconcile, and the consideration that they have given to arrangements made in relation to financial affairs and any child of the marriage. The court will not accept the agreement if it is of the view that there remains a possibility that the parties may reconcile. 

As Singapore presently does not recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions, the above ground would only apply to registered marriages between a man and a woman. 

Processes and Timelines for Divorce

Parties filing for divorce would need to commence an action in the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore, on the basis of an irretrievable breakdown of their marriage (as detailed above) in order to obtain a divorce. There are no mandatory periods of separation between the parties required, prior to the commencement of the action, unless a party is intending to rely on one of the three facts which stipulate periods in which parties were deserted and/or living apart. 

Pursuant to Section 94A of the Women’s Charter 1961, all parents with children under the age of 21 are required to attend the Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme (CPP) before filing for divorce, if they are unable to reach an agreement with their spouse on the grounds for divorce and/or all ancillary matters. 

Divorce proceedings formally begin when a plaintiff files their writ for divorce. The writ would enclose the following documents:

• a statement of claim;
• a statement of particulars;
• an acknowledgment of service;
• a memorandum of appearance;
• a proposed matrimonial property plan;
• a certificate of completion of the Mandatory Parenting Programme (for prescribed parties); and
• a proposed/agreed parenting plan (if applicable).

After service of the writ (when served within jurisdiction), the defendant must file the following documents: 

• a memorandum of appearance (within eight days);
• a defence and counterclaim (if any) (within 22 days);
• a certificate of completion of the Mandatory Parenting Programme (for prescribed parties) (within 22 days);
• a proposed parenting plan (if applicable) (within 22 days); and
• a proposed matrimonial property plan (if applicable). 

If necessary, the plaintiff may file a reply and defence to counterclaim 14 days after service of the defence and counterclaim. 

Service of Divorce Proceedings

The documents listed above must be served personally or via registered post on the other party. Alternatively, service may be properly effected on a party via their solicitors, who have indicated that they have instructions to accept service on the party’s behalf. 

If service is effected via registered post, the documents would be deemed duly served if sent by pre-paid registered post to the party, with the party signing and returning an acknowledgment of service.

Service of the writ outside jurisdiction is permissible if one of the requirements listed in Section 311 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 is met. The party seeking to serve documents outside jurisdiction must apply to the court for leave via ex parte summons supported by an affidavit stating: 

• the grounds of the application;
• that the plaintiff has a good cause of action;
• the place or country the defendant would likely be found in; and
• whether it would be necessary to extend the validity of the writ.

The writ need not be served personally on a party as long as it is served in accordance with the law of the country in which service is effected.

Religious Marriages and Divorces

The Women’s Charter 1961 does not apply to marriages solemnised or registered under Muslim law. Instead, the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966 governs Muslim marriages, with the Syariah Court deciding matters concerning divorces in Muslim marriages. Customary marriages entered into before 2 June 1967 were recognised as valid marriages. Post 2 June 1967, marriages solemnised in Singapore are only recognised as valid marriages if they are in accordance with the Women’s Charter 1961.

Judicial Separation/Annulment 

An individual may file a writ for judicial separation based on any of the five ‘“facts” as set out in “Grounds for Divorce” above. Parties may file for judicial separation prior to the three-year time bar. Thereafter, they may then commence divorce proceedings on the basis of an irretrievable breakdown of their marriage (as detailed above) in order to obtain a divorce. 

Following a judgment of judicial separation, the parties are no longer obliged to cohabit with each other. Parties who are judicially separated (but remain married) and who pass away intestate are not entitled to claim for part of the deceased spouse’s estate. 

Parties may also choose to annul their marriage if it fulfils the requirements for annulment under Sections 105 or 106 of the Women’s Charter 1961. There are two types of annullable marriages, “void” or “voidable marriages”. The following marriages are void under Section 105 of the Women’s Charter 1961:

• a marriage between persons who are Muslims; 
• a marriage between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female; 
• a marriage with one who is already lawfully married to a spouse under any law, religion, custom or usage; 
• a marriage with one who is below the age of 18 years (without authorisation by a special marriage licence); 
• a marriage within specific degrees of kindred and affinity (as set out in the First Schedule of the Women’s Charter 1961); 
• a marriage that has not been solemnised with a valid marriage licence and by a Registrar or a licensed solemniser; and 
• a marriages of convenience. 

The following marriages are voidable under Section 105 of the Women’s Charter 1961:

• a marriage which has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party or wilful refusal by one party to consummate it; 
• a marriage where one did not validly consent to it; 
• a marriage where at the time of the marriage, one who is capable of giving a valid consent was suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage; 
• a marriage where at the time of marriage, the other party was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form; and 
• a marriage where at the time of marriage, the other party was pregnant by some person other than the spouse. 

The legal processes for commencing a legal action to annul a marriage is largely similar to that of divorces. 

Singapore as the Jurisdiction for the Divorce

A Singapore court would have jurisdiction to hear an application for divorce where either or both of the parties are:

• domiciled in Singapore at the time of commencement of proceedings; or
• habitually resident in Singapore for a period of three years immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings. 

A Singapore citizen is deemed, until the contrary is proved, to be domiciled in Singapore.

A person’s domicile of origin (ie, their place of birth) would prevail when determining domicile unless that person acquires a new domicile of choice or dependence subsequently. The party who alleges that a domicile has been changed would bear the burden of proving the claim. A person cannot have more than one domicile at any one time (Peter Rogers May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian [2006] SGHC 39).

The concept of habitual residence is distinct from that of domicile. An individual would be habitually resident in a place that they are ordinarily or normally resident in, apart from temporary or occasional absences of long or short durations. The residence should also be one that is voluntarily adopted, with a degree of settled purpose (Lee Mei-Chih v Chang Kuo Yuan [2012] SGHC 180). 

As Singapore does not recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions, queries as to the jurisdictional grounds for the aforementioned categories would be a non-starter in Singapore.

Contesting Jurisdiction

The plaintiff making an application for divorce would need to state, in their statement of claim, the basis on which the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter – ie, whether reliance is placed on the parties’ domicile or habitual residence. 

If a defendant wishes to contest the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts to hear the matter, they should apply for the Singapore proceedings to be stayed pending a determination on the appropriate forum for divorce proceedings. In such applications based on the ground of forum non conveniens, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the principles laid out in the seminal case of Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (“Spiliada”).

In brief, these principles are as follows.

• The court may grant a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens when there is an available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum.
• Generally, the defendant would bear the burden of proving that a stay should be granted. If the court is satisfied, on a prima facie basis, that another forum would be the appropriate forum, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that special circumstances, which warrant a continuation of proceedings in the country, exist.
• The burden on the defendant extends to establishing that the alternative forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the present forum.
• The natural forum is the place in which there is the most real and substantial connection to the action. The court will examine connecting factors such as convenience, the law governing the matter, the location of assets, nationality, etc. 
• An application for a stay would typically be refused in situations where the court determines there is no other available forum which is clearly more appropriate.
• Conversely, a stay would usually be granted where there is an available forum which, on its face, is clearly more appropriate for the action, unless there are other countervailing considerations which militate against the grant of a stay. 

In situations where the court’s jurisdiction may be a point of contention, parties should be wary of filing further pleadings and/or applications, as this may be seen as a submission to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts (VH v VI and another [2008] 1 SLR 742).

Jurisdiction in Financial Claims

As the court’s power to order the division of matrimonial assets upon divorce flows from the initial grant of a judgment of divorce, the court’s jurisdiction to hear the parties’ financial claims would flow from a grant of interim judgment. Contesting the court’s jurisdiction, at this late stage, would likely be seen as extremely belated, and may not be entertained. Financial claims are often dealt with at the ancillary matters stage, ie, after the interim judgment of divorce has been granted. 

While a party is at liberty, at any stage, to make an application for a stay of proceedings, an application made on the basis of pursuing financial proceedings in an alternate jurisdiction is likely to require exceptional circumstances before it would be granted. Further, if the application is deemed frivolous or vexatious, it may also be dismissed with an adverse costs order against the party making the application. Generally, if there is any contest on the appropriate forum for the proceedings, it ought to be made expeditiously and as early as possible. 

Financial Claims in Foreign Divorces

Parties who have obtained a divorce in a foreign jurisdiction may apply to the court for leave to apply for financial relief consequential to said foreign matrimonial proceedings, in accordance with Sections 121A–121G of the Women’s Charter 1961. 

As a pre-condition to the grant of financial relief, either one of the below two conditions must be satisfied.

• One or both of the parties to the marriage was domiciled in Singapore:
1. on the date of the application for leave; or
2. on the date on which the divorce took effect in the foreign jurisdiction.

• One or both of the parties to the marriage was habitually resident in Singapore for a continuous period of one year: 
1. immediately preceding the date of the application for leave; or
2. on the date on which the divorce took effect in the foreign jurisdiction. 

Should this jurisdictional threshold be met, the party will need to apply for leave from the court for the application. Singapore should also be the appropriate forum for the relief to be granted. 

When assessing whether there are “substantial grounds” for the application, the court will also review the merits and prospects of success of the application, in order to carry out the function of Section 121D of the Women’s Charter 1961 as a “filter” against unmeritorious or oppressive actions (Harjit Kaur d/o Kulwant Singh v Saroop Singh a/l Amar Singh [2015] 4 SLR 1216). 

Even after substantial grounds are shown, courts will also consider the power of the foreign court to grant financial relief, the orders already made and any other relevant circumstances, such as why no orders were previously made. Further, in respecting international comity, Singapore courts are also slow to review and rewrite what a foreign court may already have decided. 

Service

For matrimonial proceedings, service generally has to be personal service on the other party, for originating process documents. There are other methods of service provided for under the Singapore Family Justice Rules, including service by registered post or in a manner agreed to between the parties; see 1.1 Grounds, Timeline, Service and Process. 

Ancillary Matters Process

The affidavit of assets and means (AOM) is a sworn statement to be filed and served by each party, after the interim judgment of divorce has been granted. 

The AOM shall contain information by each party attesting to matters such as their sources of income, the assets presently held solely and/or jointly as well as their expenses, and their positions as regards the children’s care arrangements (if any). 

Unlike pleadings in a civil action, there are no mandated default timelines for the filing and service of the AOM on the other party. Instead, these timelines are to be made by the court, bearing in mind the circumstances of the case. As such, it is also within the court’s discretion to grant an extension of time upon an application (whether orally or by written means) by one party after sufficient reasons are provided, should more time be required to prepare the AOMs. 

Following the filing of parties’ respective AOMs, a reply affidavit in response to the matters raised in the AOM may be filed and served. Likewise, the timelines for doing so would be at the court’s discretion. 

A party may also make an application for the discovery of documents or to administer interrogatories following the filing of the AOM. Such applications may be made for the underlying objective of unearthing documents and information that may lead to assets previously undisclosed in an AOM. 

Approach to Division

The court’s approach to the division of matrimonial assets would largely depend on the nature and type of the marriage. The two key criteria are (i) whether it was a dual income or single income marriage, and (ii) the length of the marriage. The court also considers the direct financial contributions and indirect contributions (both financial and non-financial) of the parties in ascertaining a just and equitable division. 

In dual-income marriages, the leading case is that of ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043, which sets out the following steps.

• Ascribe a ratio which represents each party’s direct contributions (ie, monetary contributions) to acquisition or improvement of matrimonial assets, relative to the other party.
• Ascribe a second ratio which represents each party’s indirect contribution to the well-being of the family, relative to the other party. 
• Using both ratios, the court derives each party’s average percentage contribution to the family, which would form the basis to divide the matrimonial assets (subject to any further adjustments depending on the circumstances of the case). 

In long, single-income marriages, the division of matrimonial assets would tend towards equality (TNL v TNK and another appeal and another matter [2017] 1 SLR 609).

Financial Orders

Courts are afforded a wide range of options when deciding the financial orders to be made in regulating or reallocating marital assets. A non-exhaustive list of options includes:

• the sale of immovable property and division of net sale proceeds;
• the transfer of one spouse’s share in an immovable property to another upon payment of a specified sum;
• the transfer of financial assets (eg, shares) to another spouse;
• the payment of a lump sum; and
• orders for maintenance (as discussed in 2.4 Spousal Maintenance)

The factors listed in Section 112(2) of the Women’s Charter 1961 are key considerations when deciding what orders are made with respect to the division of matrimonial assets, namely:

• contributions of each party in money, property or work done towards acquiring, improving or maintaining of the matrimonial assets;
• any debts or obligations incurred by either party for the parties’ joint benefit or for the benefit of a child of the marriage;
• the needs of any children of the marriage;
• contributions of each party to the welfare of the family;
• any agreement between parties with respect to the ownership and division of matrimonial assets made in contemplation of divorce;
• assistance or support of one spouse provided to the other; and
• factors considered in the grant of maintenance orders.

Identifying Assets

Matrimonial assets would include:

• any asset acquired during marriage by one or both parties;
• any asset acquired before marriage but is ordinarily used or enjoyed during the marriage by both parties or their children for shelter, transportation, household, education, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes;
• any asset acquired before marriage which has been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage; and
• the matrimonial home. 

Gifts or inheritance monies received during the marriage and which have not been substantially improved on during the marriage would ordinarily not be classified as a matrimonial asset; a matrimonial home is the exception to the rule (subject to any third party interests). 

Parties are expected to list all their assets in their affidavit of assets and means. In situations where a party has chosen not to participate in proceedings, the court may make orders for the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to provide disclosure of the non-participating spouse’s CPF monies. 

Property Regimes

Singapore adopts a “deferred community of property” approach, wherein all matrimonial property is treated as community property (unless otherwise taken out of the pool) upon the termination of the marriage (Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock Chye [2007] 3 SLR(R) 520). The regime is reflected in the provisions in Section 112 of the Women’s Charter 1961 and applied accordingly.

Trusts 

While the Family Courts remain open to concepts such as a resulting trust in favour of one spouse, where it is alleged that a third party holds a property on resulting trust for one spouse, a separate third-party action may need to be taken out in order to ascertain the beneficial ownership of the property. 

Where the parties to the trust are the spouses themselves, the same may be more appropriately regarded and classified as a gift made by one spouse to the other, of which significant gifts are returned to the matrimonial pool for division (Yeo Gim Tong Michael v Tianzon Lolita [1996] SGCA 14). 

If a trust property is held by one party for the benefit of the spouse or children, it is also likely that the same would be considered matrimonial property (subject to the nature of the trust). 

In Singapore, the only persons who may apply for maintenance would be current or former wives, or incapacitated husbands. 

An incapacitated husband is defined in the Women’s Charter 1961 to mean a husband who:

• during the marriage, becomes:
1. incapacitated, by any physical or mental disability or illness, from earning a livelihood; and
2. unable to maintain himself; and
• continues to be unable to maintain himself. 

Courts have interpreted the definition of an incapacitated husband to mean that the husband should be incapacitated from earning a livelihood before falling under the definition provided above (USA v USB [2020] 4 SLR 288). In this respect, a certain degree of permanence should be met, before a husband would be deemed “incapacitated”. Nonetheless, other circumstances, such as the husband’s level of education and corresponding type of work he is likely to perform may also be taken into account (VJF v VJG [2020] SGFC 54). 

In addition to maintenance post-divorce, wives and incapacitated husbands may also apply for maintenance from their spouse during the subsistence of the marriage, pursuant to Section 69 of the Women’s Charter 1961.

Interim Maintenance

A wife or incapacitated husband would be able to make an application to the court for interim maintenance from a spouse, pending the final determination of the ancillary matters. The factors considered by the court when determining the quantum of interim maintenance granted (if any) are the same as those considered when deciding the quantum of maintenance post-divorce. Interim maintenance to provide for the needs of any children of the marriage may also be ordered, whilst proceedings are pending. 

The key difference between interim and final maintenance orders would be which factors are relevant based on the facts at the time the application is made. As an order for interim maintenance would be based on the circumstances prevailing at the time of the application, the quantum of such interim maintenance (if ordered) would be affected by circumstances which may be fluid, such as the ability of a former spouse to find employment, alternative accommodation or where the children of the marriage are residing. With the objective of the interim maintenance order being to “tide over” the spouse and any children until the final ancillary matters hearing, a corresponding decrease or increase in this quantum may be ordered at the final ancillary matters hearing, depending on the circumstances. 

Quantum of Maintenance Post-Divorce

The overarching consideration of the court when deciding the quantum of any maintenance to be awarded is to adequately provide for the needs of the spouse and any children of the marriage. In doing so, it will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the factors listed in Section 114 of the Women’s Charter 1961, namely: 

• income, earning capacity and assets each of the parties has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
• financial needs and responsibilities each party has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
• standard of living enjoyed before the breakdown of the marriage;
• age of each party and the duration of the marriage;
• any physical or mental disability of each party;
• contributions of each party to the welfare of the family; and
• any benefits lost as a result of the divorce.

Each parent is jointly responsible for the maintenance of their children up until the age of 21, or unless the court is satisfied maintenance is necessary beyond that age, for example, because the child has enrolled in tertiary education or has special needs. 

Spousal maintenance is also often complementary to the division of matrimonial assets, which may be used to even out financial inequalities between spouses, taking into account any economic prejudice suffered by the wife or incapacitated husband during the marriage (BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR 233).

An order for maintenance may be in one lump sum in order to provide parties with a “clean break” from the marriage, or may be in monthly instalments. However, the court in TDT v TDS and another appeal and another matter [2016] 4 SLR 145 has cautioned that the purpose of spousal maintenance is not for the husband to act as an “insurer” for the former wife – in line with this approach, courts have previously ordered no maintenance for wives who are employed and able to provide for their own needs.

Section 112(2)(e) of the Women’s Charter 1961 states that the court, in exercising its discretion to divide matrimonial assets, must have regard to “any agreement between the parties with respect to the ownership and division of the matrimonial assets made in contemplation of divorce”.  However, the court is not bound to enforce any such agreement, but will determine the weight to ascribe to the agreement considering all the circumstances of the case (TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR (R) 961). 

For prenuptial agreements relating to children’s issues, the court would be especially vigilant and would be slow to enforce agreements that are not apparently in the best interests of the child or the children concerned (TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR (R) 961). 

If a prenuptial agreement is entered into by foreign nationals and governed by (as well as was valid according to) a foreign law (and assuming the foreign law is not repugnant to the public policy of Singapore), then the court may afford significant weight to the terms of that agreement (to avoid forum shopping). However, the court has maintained that it retains the overall discretion in determining the division of matrimonial assets. 

For postnuptial agreements, the court may accord it more weight than prenuptial agreements in the exercise of its discretion (TQ v TR [2009] 2 SLR (R) 961).

Singapore does not recognise de facto relationships or cohabitation under the matrimonial law regime. For unmarried couples, the assets would be governed by principles of contract, trust or property law. Parties also do not acquire additional rights by virtue of length of cohabitation. For children born of unmarried couples, the children are considered illegitimate. 

If a party fails to comply with a financial order, the other party can seek assistance with enforcement applications to be made in the court. These enforcement applications may include:

• garnishee proceedings; 
• enforcement order for seizure and sale of property; and
• enforcement order for delivery or possession of property. 

Naturally, if the party fails to comply with a court order, then an application for committal may also be commenced against the defaulting party. 

For enforcement of maintenance orders, the party enforcing can consider making an application for:

• sentencing the respondent to a maximum of one month’s imprisonment for each month of unpaid maintenance;
• an attachment of earnings order, which directs the respondent’s employer to deduct the portion of maintenance from the respondent’s salary and make direct payment to the applicant; 
• a garnishee order, which orders a garnishee (someone who owes the respondent money) to pay the money owed to the applicant instead of the respondent;
• an order for the respondent to give a banker’s guarantee against future defaults;
• an order for the respondent to undergo financial counselling; and
• an order for the respondent to perform community service.

The media and press are allowed to report on family court proceedings, save that Section 10 of the Family Justice Act 2014 provides that all hearings in the family courts generally are heard in camera and Section 112 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 prohibits the publishing or broadcasting of any information which may lead to the identification of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings. 

Judgments for matrimonial proceedings which involve children below the age of 21 years are also redacted and/or anonymised to adhere to Section 112 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993. 

There has been significant push for parties to resolve matters amicably. To this end, parties have the option to commence pre-writ mediation, and there are bodies (eg, the Singapore Mediation Centre, Law Society of Singapore, Singapore International Mediation Institute), and numerous private practitioners in Singapore who provide mediation services. 

In the court system, mediation is mandatory for divorced couples with children under the age of 21 years. Mediation can also be ordered in all other cases (including probate and mental capacity cases), if the court deems fit. The court may also order parties to attend private mediation for an amicable resolution. Practitioners are also expected to inform their clients about ADR options, such as mediation. 

If the parties do not make reasonable attempts at resolving their disputes through ADR mechanisms, then the court retains the right to make costs orders against the defaulting party. 

If there is an agreement arrived at via a non-court process, then such agreement can be recorded as an order of court (if there are pending court proceedings). Alternatively, a signed settlement agreement can also bind the parties. Generally, such agreements are enforceable, if legally valid.

The jurisdiction requirements for matrimonial proceedings are set out at 1.2 Choice of Jurisdiction. Generally, matters related to children in divorce proceedings are dealt with at the ancillary matters stage, after the grant of the interim judgment of divorce. The factors which the court would consider are also set out therein. 

If the parents cannot agree on a child’s living arrangements, then a party can apply for the court to determine the same under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934 (if no divorce proceedings have been commenced). For all matters concerning child-related issues, the principle is that the welfare of the child is paramount (BNS v BNT [2015] 3 SLR 973). The court would strive to make decisions which are in the best interests of the child. This is encapsulated in Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1934. In divorce proceedings, the same principle is set out at Section 125 of the Women’s Charter 1961. In deciding a child’s living arrangements, the court can consider the wishes of the parents of the child and the wishes of the child, where they are of an age to express an independent opinion. 

In considering the best interests of the child, the court can consider the following factors (which are non-exhaustive):

• the current status quo; 
• the age of the child; 
• the parties’ respective financial abilities; 
• the support and environment each party is able to provide; 
• the preservation of a mother-child bond if the child is young; and 
• the general approach that siblings should not be separated. 

The courts have the power to decide on the following matters pertaining to a child:

• custody; 
• care and control; and 
• access. 

Custody relates to the power to make major decisions regarding the child, eg, education, religion and healthcare. Care and control relates to the day-to-day care of the child. The party who is not granted care and control of the child would have access, ie, contact time with the child. Access arrangements would include considerations as to whether the contact time would include overnight or overseas access, the terms of holiday, public holidays or special occasions access.

For child maintenance, Section 68 of the Women’s Charter 1961 mandates that it is the duty of a parent to maintain their child. The court will have to take into account the following factors in deciding on the quantum of maintenance to order:

• the financial needs of the child;
• the income and earning capacity of the parents; 
• the age of the parents; 
• the assets and financial resources of the parents; 
• the standard of living enjoyed by the family; 
• the manner in which the parents expect the child to be educated; and 
• the conduct of the parents. 

Generally, if the child is above 21, then the child would have to make the application in their personal capacity. Children over the age of 21 may apply for maintenance if they:

• have a mental or physical disability; 
• are or will be serving full-time national service; 
• are still in education or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation; or 
• if there are special circumstances such that the court is satisfied that the provision of maintenance is necessary. 

Parties can (and are encouraged to) resolve matters amicably, and also come to an agreement on maintenance matters. If there is a settlement, the same can be recorded as an order of court (if there are pending court proceedings) or be encapsulated in a settlement agreement. 

See 3.2 Living/Contact Arrangements and Child Maintenance. 

See 2.9 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). 

Further, for legal proceedings involving children’s issues, the courts may also:

• appoint child representatives in highly acrimonious cases;
• call for appropriate reports to assist the court in coming to its decision; or
• appoint a parenting co-ordinator to provide assistance in resolving access issues. 

See 2.8 Media Access and Transparency.