Sia's Ex Dan Bernad Asks for $250,000 in Spousal Support to Maintain "Upper-Class Lifestyle" Amid Divorce

The Australian pop star’s short-lived marriage takes a costly turn as her estranged husband demands financial backing.

Los Angeles,
Singer and songwriter Sia is facing new legal challenges in her ongoing divorce from Dan Bernad, as court filings reveal that her estranged husband is seeking $250,000 in spousal support to maintain what he describes as an “upper-class lifestyle.”

According to documents reportedly filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Bernad claims that his standard of living during their marriage has left him financially dependent on the “Cheap Thrills” singer. The couple quietly tied the knot in 2023 in an intimate ceremony held at Sia’s Palm Springs residence but separated less than two years later.

“Mr. Bernad asserts that he has become accustomed to a level of luxury and social status that he can no longer sustain independently,” the filing states, adding that he requires the funds to cover personal and living expenses consistent with the lifestyle he shared with Sia.

Sources close to Sia describe the relationship as “brief but intense.” The Grammy-nominated artist, known for her privacy and signature face-covering wigs, has not publicly commented on the financial request or the divorce proceedings.

The couple had no children together, and the marriage reportedly lacked a formal prenuptial agreement, which could make the settlement process more complicated.

Legal experts note that California’s community property laws generally divide marital assets evenly, but spousal support claims are often evaluated based on length of marriage, income disparity, and lifestyle factors.

“High-profile cases like this one tend to highlight the financial realities of celebrity marriages,” said Los Angeles-based attorney Carla Emerson, who is not involved in the case. “A short marriage doesn’t always mean short-term support—especially if one partner can prove financial dependency.”

As of now, court dates for the next hearing have not been publicly disclosed, and representatives for both parties have declined to comment further.