SINGAPORE’S latest divorce statistics reveal that unreasonable behaviour has become the dominant legal basis for civil divorces, while family lawyers say the low incidence of adultery as a cited ground reflects legal practicality rather than the prevalence of infidelity within marriages
The Straits Times reported on Sunday that data released by the nation’s Department of Statistics on 10 July showed that 48.7 per cent of all civil, or non-Muslim, divorces in 2025 were granted on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. By comparison, adultery accounted for just 0.9 per cent of civil divorce cases, making it the least frequently cited legal fact
The pattern differs markedly in Muslim divorces, where 21.5 per cent of couples cited personality differences as the principal cause of marital breakdown, followed by infidelity at 18.4 per cent
Family law practitioners said the disparity stems from the different legal regimes governing civil and Muslim divorces rather than indicating that adultery is more common among Muslim couples
Under Singapore’s Women’s Charter, civil divorces are granted only where a marriage has broken down irretrievably, with six recognised legal facts available to establish that breakdown. These include the fault-based grounds of adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour, alongside separation for at least three years with consent, separation for at least four years without consent, and divorce by mutual agreement, which came into force on 1 July 2024
In 2025, divorce by mutual agreement became the third most frequently cited ground for civil divorces, after unreasonable behaviour and separation of at least three years with consent
Muslim divorces, however, are governed by the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) and heard in the Syariah Court, while civil divorce proceedings fall under the Women’s Charter and are handled by the Family Justice Courts
PKWA Law Practice Managing Director of Family Law and Dispute Resolution Lim Chong Boon said many spouses whose marriages had broken down because of infidelity chose to rely on unreasonable behaviour instead of adultery because it was significantly easier to establish in court
Unlike adultery, which requires evidence that a spouse engaged in a sexual relationship with a third party, unreasonable behaviour encompasses a much broader range of conduct and generally avoids a more confrontational legal process
Lawyers said proving adultery typically requires substantial circumstantial evidence, including reports from private investigators, photographs or video evidence
Lim noted that Muslim divorce statistics record the principal reason given for the breakdown of the marriage, whereas civil divorce statistics record the legal fact relied upon to satisfy the court’s requirements
As a result, the higher proportion of Muslim divorces involving infidelity should not be interpreted as evidence that adultery is significantly more prevalent among Muslim couples
Lawyers said unreasonable behaviour remains the preferred legal ground because it covers a broad spectrum of conduct, including family violence, verbal abuse, controlling behaviour, addiction, gambling, financial irresponsibility, neglect of family responsibilities and extra-marital affairs
For uncontested divorces, detailed documentary evidence is often unnecessary because the allegations are not disputed. In contested proceedings, however, evidence may include text messages, bank statements, police reports, medical records and testimony from neighbours, relatives or counsellors
A.W. Law Managing Director Abdul Wahab said unreasonable behaviour is also more practical because couples are not required to wait several years before commencing divorce proceedings, unlike applications based on prolonged separation
The introduction of divorce by mutual agreement has also reduced conflict in divorce proceedings by allowing both spouses to jointly acknowledge that the marriage has irretrievably broken down without assigning blame
Lawyers said the reform enables couples to focus on resolving issues involving children, finances and future co-parenting arrangements, rather than engaging in adversarial disputes over responsibility for the collapse of the marriage. – July 19, 2026
