A 56-year-old woman living in Shanghai sought S$10,000 a month from her 72-year-old Singaporean husband, citing her lifestyle and spending needs.
But the Singapore Family Court rejected her application after finding that her claimed expenses went well beyond what the court considered reasonable.
The judge assessed her reasonable monthly maintenance at just S$2,559 — around a quarter of the S$10,000 she had sought.
The case involved a couple who had been living apart for years, with the woman remaining in China while her husband stayed in Singapore.
She claimed S$10,000 a month was needed
The couple married in China in 2012 and have no children.
The woman initially lived in Singapore but returned to China after her visit pass expired at the end of 2013.
According to her account, her husband subsequently transferred S$3,000 every month for her living expenses.
She also claimed that whenever they travelled to meet each other, he would provide another S$7,000 for shopping and travel.
Based on this arrangement, she argued that her standard of living was effectively worth more than S$10,000 a month.
However, the arrangement changed over time.
She said her husband stopped travelling to China to visit her from September 2023, while the monthly support remained at S$3,000.
In October 2024, she claimed that the amount was slashed to just S$600 a month.
She subsequently went to court seeking S$10,000 a month in interim maintenance.
Beauty treatments, jewellery and travel among claimed expenses
Her spending claims included expenses such as hiring a domestic helper, beauty treatments, travel and jewellery.
The request meant that her husband, who was already 72 years old, would potentially have been required to provide a substantial monthly sum despite the couple’s long-standing separate living arrangements.
Her husband disputed her account of their finances.
He denied providing her with a house, cars or other assets when they married and rejected the suggestion that he had routinely given her around S$10,000 every month.
He acknowledged providing S$3,000 a month during the pandemic, but denied giving her the additional sums she claimed.
Husband’s CPF income only about S$1,629 a month
The husband’s own financial circumstances also came under scrutiny.
His current monthly CPF income was about S$1,629.
He said he had been transferring around 3,000 yuan, equivalent to approximately S$570, to his wife.
During cross-examination, he eventually acknowledged that S$570 a month was insufficient to meet his wife’s spending habits.
The woman’s lawyer argued that this amounted to an admission that the husband had failed to provide adequate support.
The judge disagreed that the admission alone settled the matter.
The court noted that an admission during cross-examination was only one part of the evidence and that it still had to determine what constituted reasonable expenses and whether there was an actual shortfall.
Court rejects S$10,000 request
After examining the woman’s claimed expenses, the judge excluded expenses that were not considered necessary.
The court calculated her reasonable monthly maintenance at S$2,559.
That was dramatically lower than the S$10,000 a month she had requested.
The judge also took into account her rental and pension income, as well as the approximately S$570 being provided by her husband.
Taken together, the court found that these sources were sufficient to meet the woman’s assessed reasonable expenses.
The judge therefore found that she had failed to prove that her husband had neglected his duty to support her or refused to provide