{"id":148,"date":"2025-07-16T23:55:30","date_gmt":"2025-07-16T16:55:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/not-to-include-in-a-thai-prenuptial-agreement\/"},"modified":"2026-10-25T15:24:50","modified_gmt":"2026-10-25T08:24:50","slug":"not-to-include-in-a-thai-prenuptial-agreement","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/not-to-include-in-a-thai-prenuptial-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"Ce qu'il ne faut pas inclure dans un contrat pr\u00e9nuptial tha\u00eflandais (clauses invalides)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The commonest defect I see in a prenuptial agreement is one drafted abroad that says foreign law governs the property. It may be well written. It still asks Thai law to do something it will not do. This page is the list of clauses that fail in Thailand, why they fail, and what a Thai court will actually enforce instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The short version: under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code<\/a>, a prenuptial agreement deals with property, and only property. A clause that goes against Thai law, public order or good morals<\/a> cannot be enforced, and neither can a clause that applies foreign law to the property (the Civil and Commercial Code rule on what a prenuptial agreement may cover<\/a>). For the basics, start with our page on the prenuptial agreement under Thai law<\/a>. Our fee for a prenuptial agreement is 8,900 baht.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the wider context on marital property<\/a> and what the courts will enforce, see our guide to Thai family law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last reviewed: 31 August 2026. The Civil and Commercial Code<\/a> rules on marriage (the rules that a marriage exists only once registered and needs both partners’ consent), the Civil and Commercial Code rule on what a prenuptial agreement may cover (property only), and the rule that a prenuptial agreement must be registered with the marriage were read against the Thai text in our own annotated Code, paragraph by paragraph. Supreme Court<\/a> Decision 2553\/2526 was read in full in Thai, to its final order, including the reduction of the agreed penalty. The correction made at this review is stated plainly because the page previously said the opposite: a clause keeping the spouses’ property separate is valid under the Civil and Commercial Code rule on what a prenuptial agreement may cover (property only), not void. What that rule voids is a clause contrary to public order or good morals, or one applying the law of another country to the property. Reread on 5 October 2026: the rule that a prenuptial agreement can only be changed after the wedding with court permission, the rule that a change to the couple’s property arrangements cannot be used against an outsider who dealt with them in good faith, the rule that a spouse can cancel a contract made between spouses during the marriage, the court’s power to fix maintenance between family members, the rule that the right to maintenance cannot be waived, and Decision 6711\/2537 were read in Thai. The page had said postmarital agreements are not recognised; under the rule that a spouse can cancel a contract made between spouses during the marriage, they are valid but either spouse may avoid them during the marriage or within a year after. A Supreme Court statement about pressure and time to consider, for which we found no decision, was removed, and the unconscionability section now says that Thai law tests these agreements by the Civil and Commercial Code rule on what a prenuptial agreement may cover (property only) and the rules on defective consent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"Cartoon<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Table of Contents<\/h2>