The High Court here has dismissed a wife’s bid for interim spousal maintenance, ruling that her claim was premised on compensation for career-related setbacks rather than legitimate financial support under family law.
Justice Evrol Mariette Peters said the wife had attempted to “test the waters” in a bid to see how much she could secure from the court, a move the judge described as “disingenuous”.
“I was compelled to remind all parties that divorce or separation is neither a lottery windfall nor a revenue-generating exercise,” Peters noted in her 23-page judgment, explaining that matrimonial proceedings were “a legal process to address the breakdown of a marital relationship, not a means for personal enrichment”.
The couple, now in their mid-60s, was married in 1987 and have three adult children.
The wife brought judicial separation proceedings in 2022 and sought maintenance, which was rejected by the court in 2023. The husband then filed for divorce, which saw the wife renew her claim for interim support pending resolution of both actions.
The duo are co-founders of a highly successful company and have had a long history of business collaboration, with the wife playing an active management role until 2018.
Peters, who was promoted to the Court of Appeal on Monday, found that the wife did not meet the legal “means and needs” threshold set by law for maintenance.
“(The wife) was gainfully employed throughout the marriage. She maintained a steady and reliable income stream, and consistently demonstrated a strong earning capacity,” the judgment read.
“This clearly indicated that she was financially independent and capable of supporting herself without reliance on the Petitioner.”
The court also took into account her substantial financial portfolio, which included assets held in the US.
Significantly, Peters drew attention to the nature of the wife’s claim, which stemmed from her alleged loss of salary, bonuses, allowances and EPF contributions.
The wife had argued that she had suffered these losses due to the husband’s influence over the companies which had led to her losing her entitlement to remuneration since April last year.
“Her claim was formulated as a form of compensation or restitution for career-related losses rather than traditional maintenance under the law,” Peters wrote.
The judge said the claim as framed was legally unsustainable. Interim maintenance, she said, is intended to address genuine financial vulnerability following marital breakdown—not to redress employment grievances or replicate prior luxuries.
“It must be emphasised that the law does not guarantee the preservation of an identical standard of living following divorce or separation,” the judge said.
“It is not the court’s role to preserve opulence but to avoid a sudden or unjustifiable deterioration in the standard of living of the spouse seeking support.”
Peters also found that the wife’s application was weakened by the absence of documentation showing actual expenses or evidence of consistent financial support from the husband during the marriage.
“Her claim for an exorbitant amount, premised solely on the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage, was neither proportionate nor supported by the principles governing spousal maintenance,” said Peters.
