Last updated on สิงหาคม 7, 2026
A husband moved THB 1,431,731 of marital money to another woman. His wife got every baht of it back — and still lost, because of when she filed. Thailand’s Supreme Court explained why in Decision 139/2569, and the lesson is about timing rather than entitlement.
ประเด็นสำคัญ
- Gifts of marital property made without your consent can be revoked under CCC section 1480, and the property itself recovered from the recipient.
- A gift recipient ไม่สามารถ use the “good faith and for value” defence — a gift has no consideration, so the defence fails on its own terms.
- You have one year from discovery, and ten years from the transaction, to bring the claim.
- Interest runs only from the date of the revoking judgment, not from the date of the transfer. Delay is expensive even when you win.
- Settling a compensation claim against the third party does ไม่ bar a later revocation claim. The two rest on different grounds.
What happened in Decision 139/2569
The case came before the Supreme Court’s Juvenile and Family Division as black case ยช.(พ) 12/2568. During the marriage, the husband transferred THB 1,431,731 of marital funds (ซิน ซอมรอส) to a third party as a gratuitous gift. His wife did not consent and, on the findings, did not know at the time.
She had already brought and settled a separate claim for compensation under CCC section 1523 paragraph 2 arising from the same relationship. She then filed this second action to revoke the gifts themselves and recover the money.
The case moved through three different answers:
| ศาล | Amount revoked | Interest running from |
|---|---|---|
| Court of First Instance | THB 267,000 (partial) | Day after the complaint was filed |
| ศาลอุทธรณ์ | THB 1,431,731 (full) | Dates of the transfers |
| ศาลฎีกา | THB 1,431,731 (full) | 16 February 2566 — the first-instance judgment date |
Interest was fixed at 5% per annum, adjustable by royal decree under CCC section 7 plus 2%, capped at 5%.
Why the gift was revocable
CCC section 1476 sets out the eight dealings with marital property that spouses must manage jointly or with the other’s consent. Subsection (5) covers gratuitous gifts:
(๕) ให้โดยเสน่หา เว้นแต่การให้ที่พอควรแก่ฐานานุรูปของครอบครัวเพื่อการกุศล เพื่อการสังคม หรือตามหน้าที่ธรรมจรรยา
The exception is routinely misdescribed — including by other English-language sources — as four alternatives. It is not. A gift escapes the consent requirement only if it is both for charitable purposes, for social purposes, or in accordance with moral obligation, และ proportionate to the family’s station in life. Both limbs, not either.
That reading matters here. A contribution to a family wedding clears both. A temple donation of sensible size clears both. A transfer of THB 1.4 million to a romantic partner clears neither.
Since the Marriage Equality Act (CCC Amendment Act No. 24, B.E. 2567, in force 22 January 2025), section 1476 refers to คู่สมรส — spouses — and applies identically to same-sex marriages registered in Thailand.
Where section 1476 is breached, section 1480 supplies the remedy:
การจัดการสินสมรสซึ่งต้องจัดการร่วมกันหรือต้องได้รับความยินยอมจากอีกฝ่ายหนึ่งตามมาตรา ๑๔๗๖ ถ้าคู่สมรสฝ่ายหนึ่งได้ทำนิติกรรมไปแต่เพียงฝ่ายเดียว หรือโดยปราศจากความยินยอมของคู่สมรสอีกฝ่ายหนึ่ง คู่สมรสอีกฝ่ายหนึ่งอาจฟ้องให้ศาลเพิกถอนนิติกรรมนั้นได้ เว้นแต่คู่สมรสอีกฝ่ายหนึ่งได้ให้สัตยาบันแก่นิติกรรมนั้นแล้ว หรือในขณะที่ทำนิติกรรมนั้นบุคคลภายนอกได้กระทำโดยสุจริตและเสียค่าตอบแทน
The final clause is the third party’s shield: it protects someone who acted in good faith และ for value. Both limbs are required, and a gift cannot satisfy the second. This is why claims against a gift recipient are structurally stronger than claims against a buyer — the recipient’s innocence is legally irrelevant.
The interest holding — and why it is the practical story
The Court of Appeal’s instinct was the intuitive one: the money left on a certain date, so interest should run from that date. The Supreme Court disagreed, and the reasoning is worth following because it governs how these claims should be timed.
A gratuitous transfer of marital property is not void. It is voidable. It remains fully effective until a court revokes it. Until that moment the recipient holds the money lawfully, owes nothing, and therefore cannot be in default (phit nat / ผิดนัด). Since CCC section 224 default interest presupposes default, there is nothing for interest to attach to before judgment.
The consequence is uncomfortable. Every month between the transfer and the judgment is a month in which the recipient has the use of your money for free. In this case the transfers and the first-instance judgment were separated by roughly two years — two years of interest on THB 1.4 million that the wife was never going to recover, no matter how completely she won.
This is the argument for filing immediately rather than waiting for the divorce proceedings to take shape.
Two claims, not one
Where the transfer went to a romantic partner, Thai law offers two separate routes, and clients routinely assume they must choose:
| Revocation | ค่าตอบแทน | |
|---|---|---|
| การจัดหา | CCC s.1480 with s.1476 | CCC s.1523 para 2 |
| Recovers | The asset or money itself | Damages for the marital wrong |
| Limitation | 1 year from discovery / 10 years from the act | Separate regime |
Decision 139/2569 resolved the procedural question directly. The defendants argued that the settled section 1523 claim made this action a repeat proceeding barred by CPC section 144. The Court rejected that: the two claims อาศัยข้อหาต่างกัน — they rest on different grounds. Compensation concerns the marital wrong; revocation concerns unauthorised management of marital property. Both are available, and they can be run in sequence.
The Court also disposed of a ratification argument. Section 1480 removes the right to revoke where the innocent spouse has ratified the transaction. Here, the wife’s earlier conduct amounted to การบอกล้าง — avoiding the transaction, which brings it to an end — and not to การให้สัตยาบัน, ratification. The distinction saved the claim.
The deadline most people miss
The second paragraph of section 1480 is short and unforgiving:
การฟ้องให้ศาลเพิกถอนนิติกรรมตามวรรคหนึ่งห้ามมิให้ฟ้องเมื่อพ้นหนึ่งปี นับแต่วันที่ได้รู้เหตุอันเป็นมูลให้เพิกถอน หรือเมื่อพ้นสิบปีนับแต่วันที่ได้ทำนิติกรรมนั้น
One year from the day you learn of the grounds. Ten years from the transaction, absolutely.
The one-year clock starts on discovery — not on separation, not on filing for divorce, not on instructing a lawyer. In practice this is where these claims are lost. Someone finds a bank statement in March, spends the year deciding whether the marriage is over, and instructs a lawyer the following April. The remedy has already expired.
Read alongside the interest holding, the two rules point the same way. Waiting can extinguish the claim; waiting less can still cost you the interest. There is no version of this in which delay helps.
What to do if you have just found a transfer
- Record the date and manner of discovery. This is the fact the limitation period turns on and you may have to prove it.
- Secure the evidence now. Bank statements, transfer records, Land Department records, messages. Access tends to disappear once the dispute is open.
- Avoid anything resembling ratification. Do not sign consent documents, accept a share of proceeds, or give written acknowledgement of the transfer.
- Ask about provisional measures if further dissipation looks likely.
- File the section 1480 claim promptly — before, or alongside, any compensation claim, not after it settles.
Preventing the problem instead
Section 1476/1 lets spouses vary the consent regime, in whole or in part, but only through a prenuptial agreement made under sections 1465 and 1466 — and in Thailand that must be registered at the district office at the same time as the marriage. It cannot be added later.
A properly drafted agreement can set a baht threshold above which any transfer requires written consent, schedule pre-marital assets so that classification is never in dispute, and define what “proportionate to the family’s station in life” means for that couple. All three are cheaper than a revocation action through three courts.
ThaiLawOnline สามารถช่วยเหลือคุณได้อย่างไร
Our family law team has advised expatriates and mixed-nationality couples in Thailand for over 30 years, including on marital property disputes involving cross-border assets. If you have discovered a transfer, the first question is not whether you have a claim — it is how much of the one-year period is left.
Book a family law consultation or read our full guide to separation of assets in a Thai divorce.
Related reading
- Full case note: Supreme Court Decision 139/2569
- Decision 337/2530 — Interspousal Gifts and Property Conversion
- การหย่าร้างในประเทศไทย: ขั้นตอน ค่าใช้จ่าย และเอกสารที่ต้องเตรียม
- การหย่าร้างที่มีข้อพิพาทในประเทศไทย
- ผลที่ตามมาของการแต่งงานในประเทศไทย
This article discusses Thai law as stated in Supreme Court Decision 139/2569 and the Civil and Commercial Code. It is general information, not legal advice on your situation. Limitation periods are strict and fact-dependent — take advice on your own facts promptly.
ข่าวสารกฎหมายไทย ฟรีทางอีเมล
อัปเดตข่าวสารกฎหมายไทยในภาษาเข้าใจง่าย ที่ส่งผลกระทบต่อชาวต่างชาติ: อสังหาริมทรัพย์, วีซ่า, การสมรส, ธุรกิจ และพินัยกรรม จดหมายข่าวสั้นเพียงฉบับเดียวต่อเดือน จากสำนักงานกฎหมายที่ดำเนินงานมาตั้งแต่ปี 2549 ไม่มีการส่งสแปม ยกเลิกรับได้ทุกเมื่อ.