- Joined
- Apr 14, 2011
- Messages
- 20,635
- Points
- 113
Man has to give ex-wife S$20 million after divorce, allegedly tries to relocate to Dubai & sell bungalow
He claimed the listing was a mistake and that his Dubai trips were ordinary business travel.
Nurshahiylia Sidin
February 16, 2026, 06:29 PM
The Singapore High Court has ordered the assets of a businessman in the metal trading industry to be frozen after concerns emerged that he may dissipate funds needed to fulfil the remaining balance of a multi-million-dollar divorce settlement.
The order covers S$7.56 million, the outstanding sum still owed to his former wife under a S$20 million consent order reached during their divorce proceedings.
High Court Judge Choo Han Teck ruled that the wife had shown sufficient risk that enforcement of the settlement could be frustrated without urgent asset preservation measures.
Divorce settlement reached after mediation
The couple, who married in India in 2004 and have two children, divorced in Singapore after the wife filed for divorce in February 2022.
Interim judgment was granted in September that year, according to court documents seen by Mothership.
Following private mediation, both parties agreed on ancillary matters, which were recorded in a consent order dated Mar. 21, 2023.
Under the terms of the order, the husband was required to pay his former wife S$20 million by June 2027, through monthly instalments of S$312,500.
He was also to cover mortgage payments for the matrimonial home where she and the children reside, as well as reasonable household expenses until full payment was made.
Payments fell behind and refinancing raised alarm
Difficulties arose when the businessman began missing instalments.
In November 2024, the wife sought to vary the consent order, requesting either immediate payment of the remaining balance or accelerated terms, after the husband stopped making monthly payments for five months.
She also pointed to his refinancing of a bungalow, where an earlier mortgage of around S$8 to 9 million was replaced with a new S$29.5 million loan, significantly reducing the property’s net value.
Justice Choo dismissed her application in May 2025, finding that the husband’s unwillingness to comply did not make the consent order “unworkable”.
However, the judge directed him to provide assurances of compliance and to give notice before using loan proceeds.
Wife sought freezing order amid Dubai move concerns
By September 2025, the wife applied for a domestic Mareva injunction, seeking to restrain her former husband from dealing with assets in Singapore.
A domestic Mareva injunction is essentially a court order that freezes someone’s assets within Singapore, so they cannot sell, transfer, or reduce them while legal obligations remain outstanding.
In divorce cases, a domestic Mareva injunction can be used to stop an ex-spouse from restructuring finances, selling property, or shifting money in a way that could frustrate enforcement of a settlement or consent order.
Her application was triggered by overdue payments of approximately S$300,000, along with her discovery that he intended to move to Dubai, had listed the bungalow for sale, and had obtained access to most of the refinancing loan funds.
The husband denied any plan to relocate, arguing that his Dubai trips were ordinary business travel, and claimed the bungalow listing was merely an administrative mistake.
An interim order was initially granted in October 2025, restricting dealings with the bungalow while accounts of the loan proceeds were sought.
"Unusual and unexplained" movement of millions
A key issue before the court was the handling of approximately S$18.3 million drawn down from the refinancing loan.
The husband withdrew the funds in two tranches, S$5.1 million and S$13.2 million, and transferred S$18.2 million to his company.
He claimed this was repayment of a debt of approximately S$15.9 million owed to the company, but the court noted that there was no clear explanation for the approximately S$2.2 million in excess payment.
Justice Choo observed that the immediate debit of the second tranche on the same day it was credited, coupled with missing documentation for the first tranche, suggested a lack of transparency.
“This is an unusual and unexplained movement of funds,” the judge said, pointing to possible dishonesty in the defendant’s financial dealings.
The judge also highlighted a consistent pattern of missed or delayed payments since May 2025.
The husband failed to make instalments on time, only paying after the wife obtained enforcement measures such as writs of seizure and sale.
Justice Choo described this as “a troubling pattern of non-compliance followed by reactive payments when threatened with enforcement action”, adding that this was not conduct demonstrating good faith.
Court grants Mareva injunction to preserve settlement sum
While the husband argued that freezing the full remaining balance would amount to improper security for future payments, the judge drew a distinction between providing security and preserving assets to ensure compliance with an existing court order.
Justice Choo concluded that the husband’s behaviour had created a real risk that enforcement of the consent order could be undermined, making Mareva relief necessary.
On Feb. 5, the court ordered that the husband be restrained from disposing of assets up to S$7,564,092.50, the outstanding balance still due.
He was further directed to place the funds with his solicitors within 30 days, to be held on trust and disbursed to the wife according to the agreed monthly schedule through June 2027.
