XSB v XSC

The husband in this divorce, XSB, appealed in District Court Appeal No 113 of 2025 against parts of the ancillary orders made by a District Judge in FC/D 5738/2023. The marriage lasted 16 years and nine months, and the couple have two sons, the elder of whom, C, has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. The wife, XSC, worked before the children were born but had been a full-time homemaker for ten years before taking a job at a restaurant in April 2025, where she said she worked casually for $500/month.

The District Judge ordered monthly spousal maintenance of $1,000 with no fixed end date, divided the matrimonial assets 60:40 in the husband's favour, set timelines for the sale of the HDB flat after the wife's right of first refusal, and ordered each party to bear their own costs. The husband argued that maintenance should be limited to six months, that the division should be 70:30, that the flat should be sold on the open market within six months rather than 12, and that the wife, who was legally aided, should pay costs because of delays and her changes of solicitors. The wife defended the orders and, in the alternative, proposed maintenance for half the length of the marriage.

1. Whether spousal maintenance should have been ordered for a fixed duration
2. Whether the 60:40 division of matrimonial assets should be changed to 70:30
3. Whether the timeline for selling the HDB flat should be shortened
4. Whether the legally aided wife acted improperly so as to be liable for costs

Maintenance is not meant to create life-long dependency, and former wives are expected, where reasonable, to regain some financial self-sufficiency. ATT v ATS [2012] 2 SLR 859 upheld open-ended maintenance on special facts that did not arise here: the wife had returned to work, and the evidence did not show that her health prevented employment. Six months was nonetheless too short given her age, her diploma, ten years out of work and the time she would need to support C through polytechnic, National Service and working life. Eight years matched the trend in Foo Ah Yan v Chiam Heng Chow [2012] 2 SLR 506 and the cases on about half the marriage's length.

On division, BOR v BOS [2018] SGCA 78 places marriages of about 15 to 18 years in the moderately lengthy band, where homemaker wives receive about 35% to 40%, and the husband showed nothing exceptional. The District Judge had not undervalued his contributions or overvalued her care of C, whose difficulties were noted from age 4 to 5.

The husband showed no prejudice from the sale timeline. On costs, the threshold of improper conduct under s 14(3)(b) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 is high, and the changes of solicitors arose from discussions with the Legal Aid Bureau, which the husband could not refute.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part. Spousal maintenance was fixed at eight years from the date of the ancillary matters hearing instead of an indeterminate period, payable as a lump sum excluding maintenance already paid, within three months, with liberty to the husband to propose instalments. The court clarified that the husband may make an offer for the HDB flat before it goes on the open market. The division ratio, the 12-month sale timeline and the costs order below were left unchanged, and no order was made as to costs of the appeal.