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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a