Wife locked husband out of his own home while renting out her flat: Here's what the court decided

Usually, when a marriage breaks down and the question of property ownership arises, it can become a sore point that drags out the divorce process. In a recent legal case, a disagreement over who gets to keep living in the home escalated the matter, especially when one spouse is the sole owner of the property in question.

The case brought to the Family Justice Courts involved a wife who changed the locks on her husband's property, rented out her own HDB flat, and then asked the courts to let her and her two daughters stay in his home until their divorce proceedings were over.

Ultimately, in a judgment dated 19 Oct 2026, Justice Teh Hwee dismissed the wife's appeal, finding that she was not asking for a reasonable period to move out, but effectively seeking to remain in the property indefinitely.

It's an eye-catching case that prompts us to consider the wider issue of property ownership in the midst of a divorce, and just how much right a spouse has to remain in a home that doesn't legally belong to them.

How did the dispute begin?

According to court documents, this couple married in September 2019. It was the second marriage for both, and they each had children from their previous marriage.

The property at the centre of the dispute had been purchased by the husband during his first marriage, and its ownership had been transferred solely to him after that divorce. The wife and her two daughters had been living there with him since at least August 2020. Crucially, the wife was also the sole owner of a HDB flat.

But this marriage broke down during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, and things came to a head in September 2022 when the wife changed the locks on the property's front gate without informing her husband.

Despite his attempts to resolve their differences, he was unable to regain access to his own home. More than two years later, in December 2024, the husband took the matter to the High Court, seeking to regain possession of his property.

But the wife contested the claim, arguing that it was their matrimonial home and that she had an 'equitable interest' in the property by virtue of a 'common intention constructive trust'.

Further complicating matters, while that dispute was ongoing, the wife proceeded to lease out her HDB flat. In April 2025, she signed a two-year tenancy agreement for $3,300 a month. This fateful decision would later become an important factor in the ruling against her claim.

The husband won his case, but the wife wanted to stay

In July 2025, the High Court ruled that the husband was the property's sole owner and ordered the wife to move out by 8 Oct 2025. She was also ordered to return the property's keys and access devices, as well as pay $700 in damages for trespassing.

The three-month period to move out had been granted at the request of her own lawyer. She did not appeal against the ruling.

However, six days after the deadline, the wife returned to court seeking to delay the order until their divorce proceedings, which included the division of matrimonial assets, had been resolved.

She filed for divorce the following day.

The High Court put the order on hold, and said the hold would continue if she applied to the Family Justice Court under Section 56 of the Women's Charter by 20 Nov 2025.

She subsequently asked for permission for herself and her daughters to remain in the property, preferably without her husband living there, until the divorce proceedings were concluded. But the Family Justice Courts rejected her application in May 2026, prompting her to appeal to the High Court.

Why did the High Court reject her appeal?

The central issue was whether Section 56 of the Women’s Charter allowed the wife to continue occupying a property that legally belonged to her husband.

Under this provision, the court can resolve disputes between spouses over property ownership or possession. However, it does not give the court the power to change who owns the property. Instead, the court may allow a spouse who does not own the home a reasonable period to make alternative living arrangements.

In her judgment published on Oct 19, Justice Teh found that the wife was asking for something quite different. Rather than seeking a fixed period to move out, she wanted to remain until the divorce and related proceedings were concluded, with no definite end date.

This would effectively prevent the husband from reclaiming his own property for what the judge described as a period of "her own choosing"."

Justice Teh also pointed out that allowing someone to continue living rent-free while divorce proceedings dragged on could create an incentive to delay those proceedings. Moreover, there were several other factors working against the wife.

First, she had already been given three months to move out.

This was granted at the request of her former lawyer, and the court considered it a reasonable period for her to make alternative arrangements.

Second, she had another property of her own.

The wife argued that her HDB flat was rented out until April 2027, and that she needed the rental income to support herself and her daughters.

However, she had signed the tenancy agreement after her husband had already commenced legal proceedings. The judge noted that she would have known by then that her continued occupation of his property was uncertain, yet chose to rent out her flat anyway.

She also received $3,300 a month in rental income, along with $3,866 in monthly child maintenance from her former husband. According to the judge, this suggested that she likely had the means to find alternative accommodation, even if she could not immediately move back into her HDB flat.

Third, the husband had been unable to live in his own property for years.

The marriage had been relatively short, and the husband had been locked out of his property since September 2022.

The wife argued that he had left the property voluntarily and was already living elsewhere. But the judge rejected this, pointing out that it was the wife's decision to change the locks that had prevented him from returning.

What about her $200,000 renovation claim?

The wife also argued that the property had been their family home and claimed to have spent $200,000 on renovations. However, Justice Teh found that neither argument justified allowing her to remain.

In earlier proceedings, the court had accepted the husband's argument that he had paid for all or most of the renovations. But the wife did not appeal against those findings.

More importantly, Justice Teh explained that renovation contributions were a separate matter for the court handling the division of matrimonial assets. In other words, the wife could still be entitled to a share of the matrimonial assets during the divorce, regardless of whether she was allowed to continue living in the property.

The wife also cited medical conditions that she said prevented her from working. However, the judge found that the medical evidence was insufficient to support her claim, noting that her inability to work had been described as temporary.

Justice Teh also explained that Section 56 was not intended to address a spouse's financial needs. Those matters should be dealt with through the appropriate maintenance proceedings.

Justice Teh ultimately dismissed the wife's appeal. But the judgment did not specify when the wife would have to hand over the property, and either party could apply for further orders to give effect to the decision.

The division of the couple's matrimonial assets would also be dealt with separately as part of their divorce proceedings.

For homeowners, the case highlights an important distinction between owning a property and having a potential claim to matrimonial assets. Even if a property was used as the family home, or one spouse contributed towards renovations, that does not automatically give them the right to continue living there while divorce proceedings are ongoing.

We also learnt that the court may allow a reasonable period for someone to find alternative accommodation, but that is different from allowing them to remain indefinitely.

Perhaps the most interesting detail is the wife's decision to rent out her own HDB flat while the dispute was already before the courts. Although she argued that she needed the rental income, the court considered the timing significant. She had effectively made her own alternative accommodation unavailable even though, as Justice Teh pointed out, she would have known she might have to leave her husband's property.

It's a reminder that in property disputes, the decisions made while legal proceedings are ongoing can sometimes be just as important as the circumstances that led to the dispute in the first place.

This article was first published in Stackedhomes .

通常情况下，当婚姻破裂并出现财产所有权问题时，这会成为一个棘手的问题，导致离婚程序旷日持久。在最近的一个法律案例中，关于谁可以继续居住在房屋内的争议使事态升级，尤其当一方是涉案房产的唯一所有者时更是如此。

提交给家庭法庭的这起案件涉及一名妻子，她更换了丈夫房产的门锁，出租了自己的组屋，然后请求法院允许她和她的两个女儿住在丈夫的家中，直到离婚诉讼结束。

最终，在 2026 年 10 月 19 日的判决中，郑慧法官驳回了妻子的上诉，认为她并非要求合理的搬出期限，而是实际上寻求无限期地留在该房产中。

这是一个引人注目的案例，它促使我们思考离婚过程中财产所有权的更广泛问题，以及配偶在法律上不属于自己的房屋中究竟拥有多少权利。

这场纠纷是如何开始的？

根据法庭文件，这对夫妇于 2019 年 9 月结婚。这是两人的第二次婚姻，他们各自与前任育有子女。

此次纠纷的核心房产是丈夫在第一次婚姻期间购买的，离婚后所有权完全转移给了他。妻子和她的两个女儿至少从2020年8月起就与他同住。关键在于，妻子同时也是一套组屋的唯一所有者。

但这段婚姻在新冠疫情封锁期间破裂，并在 2022 年 9 月达到高潮，当时妻子在没有通知丈夫的情况下更换了房产前门的锁。

尽管他努力调解双方矛盾，却始终无法重新获得自己房屋的居住权。两年多后，即2024年12月，丈夫将此事诉诸高等法院，要求收回房产。

但妻子对这一说法提出异议，认为这是他们的婚房，并且根据“共同意图推定信托”，她对该房产拥有“公平权益”。

更复杂的是，在纠纷进行期间，妻子竟然将自己的组屋出租了。2025年4月，她签署了一份为期两年的租赁协议，月租金为3300新元。这一决定后来成为她败诉的重要因素。

丈夫赢了官司，但妻子想留下来。

2025 年 7 月，高等法院裁定丈夫是该房产的唯一所有人，并命令妻子在 2025 年 10 月 8 日之前搬出。法院还命令她归还房产的钥匙和门禁设备，并支付 700 美元的非法侵入赔偿金。

三个月的搬离期限是应她律师的要求而批准的。她没有对裁决提出上诉。

然而，在最后期限过后六天，妻子再次向法院提出申请，要求推迟执行该命令，直到他们的离婚诉讼（包括分割夫妻共同财产）得到解决。

第二天她就提出了离婚申请。

高等法院暂停了该命令的执行，并表示如果她在 2025 年 11 月 20 日之前根据《妇女宪章》第 56 条向家庭司法法院提出申请，则暂停执行将继续有效。

随后，她请求允许自己和女儿们继续居住在该房产中，最好是丈夫不住在那里，直到离婚诉讼结束。但家事法庭于2026年5月驳回了她的申请，促使她向高等法院提起上诉。

高等法院为何驳回她的上诉？

核心问题是《妇女宪章》第 56 条是否允许妻子继续居住在法律上属于丈夫的房产中。

根据这项规定，法院可以解决夫妻之间关于财产所有权或占有权的纠纷。但是，它并不赋予法院变更财产所有权的权力。相反，法院可以允许不拥有房屋所有权的配偶在一段合理的时间内安排其他居住住所。

在10月19日公布的判决书中，郑法官认为妻子的要求截然不同。她并非要求设定一个搬离的固定期限，而是希望一直住到离婚及相关诉讼程序结束，且不设明确的结束日期。

这将有效地阻止丈夫在法官所描述的“她自己选择的”一段时间内收回自己的财产。

郑法官还指出，允许某人在离婚诉讼旷日持久期间继续免费居住，可能会诱使对方拖延诉讼程序。此外，还有其他几个因素对妻子不利。

首先，她已经被勒令在三个月内搬出去。

这是应她前律师的要求而批准的，法院认为这是她做出其他安排的合理期限。

其次，她还有另一处房产。

妻子辩称，她的组屋出租至 2027 年 4 月，她需要租金收入来养活自己和女儿们。

然而，她是在丈夫提起诉讼后才签署了租赁协议。法官指出，她当时应该已经知道自己能否继续居住在丈夫的房产中存在不确定性，却仍然选择出租自己的公寓。

她每月还能收到3300美元的租金收入，以及前夫每月支付的3866美元子女抚养费。法官认为，这表明她很可能有能力找到其他住处，即使她暂时无法搬回自己的组屋。

第三，丈夫多年来一直无法居住在自己的房产中。

这段婚姻持续时间相对较短，而且自 2022 年 9 月以来，丈夫一直被锁在自己的房产之外。

妻子辩称丈夫是自愿离开的，而且已经住在别处。但法官驳回了这一说法，指出正是妻子更换门锁的决定才阻止了他返回。

她提出的20万美元装修费用又该怎么算呢？

妻子还辩称，该房产曾是他们的家庭住宅，并声称已花费20万美元进行翻修。然而，法官郑先生认为，上述两项理由均不足以支持她继续居住。

在之前的诉讼程序中，法院接受了丈夫的说法，即他支付了全部或大部分装修费用。但妻子并未对这些裁决提出上诉。

更重要的是，郑法官解释说，房屋装修费用是法院在分割夫妻共同财产时需要单独处理的事项。换句话说，无论妻子是否被允许继续居住在该房产中，她仍然有权在离婚时获得一部分夫妻共同财产。

妻子还列举了她声称自己因健康问题而无法工作的说法。然而，法官认为医疗证据不足以支持她的说法，并指出她的无法工作被描述为暂时的。

郑法官还解释说，第56条并非旨在解决配偶的经济需求。这些问题应通过适当的赡养程序处理。

郑法官最终驳回了妻子的上诉。但判决并未明确妻子何时必须交出房产，双方均可申请进一步命令以执行该判决。

夫妻共同财产的分割也将作为离婚诉讼的一部分另行处理。

对于房主而言，此案凸显了拥有房产与对婚姻财产拥有潜在索赔权之间的一个重要区别。即使房产曾用作家庭住所，或者一方配偶曾出资翻修，这也不自动赋予其在离婚诉讼期间继续居住的权利。

我们还了解到，法院可能会允许某人在一段合理的时间内寻找其他住所，但这与允许他们无限期地留下来是不同的。

或许最引人关注的细节是，妻子在纠纷已诉诸法庭的情况下，决定出租自己的组屋。尽管她辩称需要租金收入，但法庭认为时机至关重要。正如郑法官所指出的，她明知自己可能不得不离开丈夫的房产，却仍然选择出租，实际上使自己的其他住所无法使用。

这提醒我们，在财产纠纷中，诉讼程序进行期间做出的决定有时可能与最初导致纠纷的情况同样重要。

本文最初发表于 Stackedhomes。