You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 3, 2015

Divorce in Thailand: What Foreign Couples Need to Know

The BigChilli

Divorce in Thailand is becoming more common among Thais, Thai-foreign couples, and foreign couples. In the past, most divorces handled by our firm were between a foreign man and a Thai woman, with the occasional high-profile Thai divorce. Recently, however, the number of Thai couples divorcing and the number of foreign couples seeking divorce while residing in the Kingdom have significantly increased.

The focus of this article is foreign couples—and to a lesser extent Thai-foreign couples—as they tend to bring their home jurisdiction expectations to a Thai divorce, which can lead to serious difficulties between the parties and with their respective lawyers. This article provides a comparative perspective to foreign couples contemplating divorce in Thailand, so they may plan and adjust their expectations accordingly.

Divorce in the West

Divorce in the West varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but most tend to have some basic principles in common. A few of these basic principles are as follows.

  • Grounds for Divorce: Just as parties have the right to get married, the right to divorce has been embodied in practice, if not in principle. No-fault or irreconcilable differences are common methods for divorcing in the West. Courts are reluctant to even address matters of adultery or to dig through the “he said, she said” issues of why the parties are seeking a divorce.
     
  • Presumption of Joint Child Custody: Most courts presume that the parties are entitled to joint custody of children and the courts are authorized to award joint custody over the objection of either party, absent exceptional circumstances.
     
  • Leveling the Playing Field between the Parties: Courts have long recognized that most families have a single breadwinner, and therefore the courts are authorized to issue temporary orders to reallocate family resources to the financially disadvantaged spouse and preliminarily determine other rights. Courts regularly issue temporary orders of custody, visitation, support, alimony, property possession, and interim attorneys’ fees to ensure that one party does not abuse their financial position to obtain an unfair advantage or outcome. Importantly, these orders are regularly and easily enforced through the courts’ contempt powers.
     
  • Court Intervention in Parties’ Problems: Emergency motions seeking urgent court assistance to compel one party to undertake an act, such as deliver the passports of a child for an agreed vacation, are extremely common and effective tools.
     
  • Discovery and Standards for Determining Support: Both parties are often required to complete financial disclosure statements very early in the proceedings. In addition, failing to fully disclose information, secreting assets, or diverting income is often swiftly and harshly punished by the court. Those financial disclosure statements are then used to calculate a base amount of child support, usually a percentage of net income per child, plus the equitable division of various other expenses.
     
  • Formal Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures: Courts have professional mediators on staff to work with the parties to try to settle the cases. And more recent efforts, such as collaborative law, push parties toward an amicable, manageable process resulting in less emotional damage to the parties and their children.

In our experience, these factors have the most significant impact on our clients’ expectations and decisions. They often come into divorce proceedings in Thailand with an expectation that the process and outcomes will be similar to the West, when in fact Thai Family Courts operate under different laws, procedures, and practices.

Divorce in Thailand

For clients who are unfamiliar with the details of Thai divorce law, the following are some of the key issues that differ from the West.

  • Grounds for Divorce: Except where the parties’ marriage is registered in Thailand, there is no right to divorce and the law takes a more traditional view requiring a party to cite one of various specified grounds for divorce including adultery, desertion, separation, serious abuse, and mental torture, among others. These grounds are taken seriously by the courts, are often technical in nature, and must be proven or admitted by one party before the court will grant a divorce.
     
  • No Presumption of Joint Child Custody: Thai courts are not authorized to award joint custody unless the parties reach a settlement agreement on all of the issues. In other words, if the case goes to trial and there is no settlement, the court is forced to decide on sole custody for one party or the other.
     
  • Little Leveling of the Playing Field between the Parties: Managing resources is an important aspect of divorce litigation in Thailand. While extreme cases may warrant court intervention, the parties are generally expected to fund their own litigation and living expenses while the proceedings are pending. Each party must secure access to a source of funds or a “war chest” in order to litigate the case on even terms.
     
  • Minimal Court Intervention in Parties’ Problems: The Thai courts have set a high standard for determining what constitutes an emergency in the context of a family law matter. Parties are expected to behave in a civil manner toward each other and the court is reluctant to intervene in all but the most serious matters.
     
  • Discovery and Standards for Determining Support: The parties may seek to have subpoenas issued for bank records and directed to their spouse’s employer and bank, which routinely result in documents being produced for inspection and use as evidence. However, when it comes to unknown accounts and other hidden assets or income streams, it is incumbent on the suspecting spouse to try to obtain evidence to support a subpoena request. Child support and alimony or maintenance are awarded based on Thai standards, with some allowances being given for major expenses such as international school tuition.
     
  • Formal Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures: Thai courts rely heavily on the mediation process to resolve cases. All cases are mandatorily referred to mediation, which is conducted by a lay-judge who is not assigned to the main case. The court will conduct repeated mediation sessions until the parties resolve the case or the court determines that settlement is simply not possible, and only then will the case be set for trial. Afterward, the court will continue to make attempts to get the parties to settle all the way up to and even after trial.

The differences between the two systems are apparent and it is easy to see why there is much confusion and disappointment among some foreign litigants with their experience in the Thai Family Court. Mismatched expectations have led many foreigners to lose faith in the Thai Family Court, when in truth, failures in communication and understanding is what actually leads to perceived injustices. As with anything, being aware of the differences and adjusting expectations accordingly will allow you to plan, prepare, and decide on the best way forward under the circumstances.

Summary

This article has highlighted and explained some of the main differences between most systems in the West and the Thai Family Court. Below, you will find a summary of the differences.

Issue Thailand West

Grounds

Specific, provable, and enumerated grounds required

Irreconcilable differences or no-fault often permissible

Child Custody

No joint custody without agreement

Joint custody presumed

Reallocation of Resources

Very rare

Common and routine

Court Intervention in Problems

Rare

Common and routine

Discovery and Support Level

Limited discovery and Thai-standard support

Required disclosures with strong enforcement and income-based approach to support

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Court mediation required

Multiple ADR options

Of course, we believe that an amicable settlement reached between the parties before any court proceedings begin is the least painful and most effective way to end a marriage. It is important to find the right lawyer who can answer your questions and proactively identify settlement opportunities, yet can skillfully litigate the case if needed. There are many considerations involved in the decision to get divorced, including where and when to proceed. Each case is unique and requires specific advice and planning to ensure you can achieve an equitable and acceptable result.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC