XTQ v XTR

The parties married in India on 25 January 2004 and have no children. The wife lived in Singapore and the husband in the United States. On 29 April 2024 the wife applied for judicial separation in Divorce No. 1949 of 2024, alleging that the husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The husband's application for a stay in favour of India on forum non conveniens grounds was dismissed on 18 November 2024, and the case went to a one-day trial on 14 May 2025.

The wife relied on a lack of physical intimacy, his failure to prioritise time with her, his alleged efforts to remove himself from her, and secretive behaviour. The husband denied unreasonable behaviour. While he agreed the marriage had broken down, his central defence was that the parties had been separated since 2018 and lived as platonic friends, and he claimed her allegations were made for tactical advantage. It was undisputed that the parties lived apart and had agreed to a three-month trial separation from June 2018. The husband filed for divorce in India on 5 August 2023 without telling her. The Family Court granted judicial separation on 28 August 2025, and the husband appealed in HCF/DCA 108 of 2025.

1. Whether the parties had in fact separated after the 2018 trial separation
2. Whether the wife proved that the husband behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him
3. Whether there was any reasonable prospect of reconciliation

The court found that, after the trial separation, the parties still behaved as spouses. Their messages went beyond platonic friendship; the husband did not correct the wife when she called herself his wife, and his own evidence that they were still moving towards a separate relationship in 2020 to 2022 undercut his claim of separation by November 2018. The wife knew he was seeing another woman but appeared prepared to accept it so long as she remained his wife.

On behaviour, the court applied the less stringent approach for judicial separation drawn from Elements of Family Law in Singapore and USC v USD [2019] SGFC 6. The allegation that he repeatedly refused intimacy was unproven, and two occasions in 2022 when they did not meet were not enough to show he failed to prioritise her; the second appeared to come down to miscommunication and scheduling. But from January 2023 he gave her the impression that he was working on a US dependent visa for her, and continued to do so even after filing for divorce in India, without telling her. The court found he misled her, gave her false hope of joining him in the US and concealed his real intentions, which cumulatively undermined her trust. His failure to disclose his US address was also secretive given the finding that they had not separated, though designating his secretary as emergency contact and ending his insurance policy were not.

Given his Indian divorce filing, there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. His claim of tactical allegations was unproven.

The Family Court granted the wife a judgment of judicial separation and ordered the husband to pay her costs of the trial fixed at $8,000.00 all-in. These grounds were given for the husband's appeal against the whole decision.