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 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under