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​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only