Divorce by mutual agreement is the sixth fact you can use to prove that a marriage has irretrievably broken down in Singapore. It came into force on 1 July 2024 under an amendment to the Women’s Charter, and it lets a couple agree that the marriage is over instead of one of them having to prove adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion or a long period of separation.
To use it, both parties agree the marriage has irretrievably broken down and file a written agreement with the court. The agreement must set out the reasons they say the marriage broke down, the efforts they made to reconcile, and that they have considered the arrangements to be made for their children and their finances. The court must then be satisfied the agreement is genuine, and can reject it if it thinks reconciliation is still possible.
Why the sixth fact exists
Before July 2024, a couple who both wanted out but had no complaint serious enough to plead had two options. They could wait three or four years and rely on separation. Or one of them could write a statement of particulars describing the other’s behaviour as unreasonable, a document that had to be detailed enough to satisfy the court, and which the other spouse then had to read.
That second route generated a lot of unnecessary bitterness. Couples who had decided calmly to end a marriage found themselves cataloguing each other’s failings for a court file, then trying to co-parent afterwards. The sixth fact was introduced to remove that step where it is not needed. Parliament’s stated purpose was to reduce acrimony and let couples end a marriage without assigning blame, particularly where children are involved and the parents will have to deal with each other for years.
It is worth being clear about what changed and what did not. Singapore still has only one ground for divorce: that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The sixth fact is simply another way of proving that ground. It did not make divorce easier to obtain in the sense of lowering the threshold: the court still has to be satisfied the marriage is genuinely finished.
How it differs from the other five facts
The five older facts all require you to prove something about your spouse or about the passage of time. The sixth requires you to prove something about the two of you together.
| Fact | What you must show | Waiting period |
|---|---|---|
| Adultery | Your spouse committed adultery and you find it intolerable to live with them | None |
| Unreasonable behaviour | Your spouse behaved in a way you cannot reasonably be expected to live with | None |
| Desertion | Your spouse deserted you for a continuous period of at least two years | 2 years |
| Separation with consent | You have lived apart for at least three years and your spouse consents | 3 years |
| Separation without consent | You have lived apart for at least four years | 4 years |
| Mutual agreement | Both of you agree the marriage has irretrievably broken down, in a written agreement the court accepts | None |
The practical difference is the absence of a target. Nobody is the wrongdoer. There is no statement of particulars listing incidents, no allegation for the other side to deny, and no admission that can be waved around later. Our comparison of the six facts and how to choose between them goes through each in more detail.
The trade-off is that the sixth fact needs genuine cooperation. If your spouse will not sign, you cannot use it: one party alone cannot make a mutual agreement. In that situation you are back to the other five facts.
What goes into the written agreement
The agreement is a document filed with the court, not a private settlement between you. Three things must be in it.
- The reasons. Why you both say the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This can be written neutrally: growing apart, incompatibility, the relationship having ended in substance some time ago. It does not have to attribute fault, but it does have to be real. A single line saying “we no longer wish to be married” is unlikely to satisfy the court.
- The efforts at reconciliation. What you tried, and why it did not work. Set out what actually happened: counselling, a trial separation, conversations with family or a religious leader. If you did not try anything, say so and explain why.
- Consideration of arrangements. A statement that you have considered the arrangements to be made for your children and for your finances. Note the wording: you must have considered them. You do not need to have settled every ancillary matter before you can file on this fact.
Write it in your own terms. It is filed with the court and read by a judge, so keep it factual and avoid using it to score points: that defeats the purpose of the fact and can invite scrutiny.
What the court checks before accepting it
The court is not a rubber stamp. It must be satisfied that the agreement is genuine evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and it has an express power to reject the agreement where it considers there is a reasonable possibility of reconciliation.
In practice that means a court may look harder at cases where the reasons are thin, where the reconciliation efforts section is blank without explanation, or where something on the file suggests one party has been pressured into signing. If the court rejects the agreement, the divorce does not proceed on that fact: you would need to rely on a different fact, or wait.
Consent given under pressure
The requirement that the agreement be genuine matters most where the relationship is unequal. If you are being pushed to sign an agreement you do not accept, or told that agreeing is the only way to keep access to your children, that is a reason to get advice before signing anything. Consent obtained that way is not the mutual agreement the section contemplates. If you want advice on your own situation, we can connect you with a licensed Singapore law practice.
What the sixth fact does not change
Two misconceptions come up constantly.
It does not remove the three-year bar. Section 94 of the Women’s Charter still prevents you from filing for divorce within the first three years of marriage, whichever fact you rely on. The exceptions (exceptional hardship suffered by the applicant, or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent) are narrow and require the court’s leave. Our guide to the three-year rule and its exceptions explains what qualifies.
It is a fact, not a fast track. This is the most common confusion. Whether your divorce is quick depends on whether you are agreed on the ancillary matters (children, maintenance, property and the rest) and on which procedural track your case follows. The simplified or uncontested route is a separate question from which fact you plead, and the two do not automatically go together. You can file on mutual agreement and still spend two years fighting over the flat. See how the uncontested and simplified track works for what actually determines the timeline.
When mutual agreement is the right choice
It suits couples who have both accepted the marriage is over, can be in a room together long enough to draft a paragraph or two, and want to avoid putting allegations on a court file. It is particularly useful where you will be co-parenting, where extended family will read the papers, or where one of you works in a field in which a public record of alleged misconduct would cause real damage.
It is not the right choice where your spouse disputes that the marriage is over, where you need the court to know about behaviour that is relevant to the ancillary matters (family violence, for instance, or dissipation of assets) or where waiting for cooperation would leave you unprotected. In those cases another fact will serve you better.
If you are still working out where to start, our overview of how divorce works in Singapore sets out the whole sequence, from choosing a fact through to final judgment.
