Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

法律更新 – 离婚 – 单方面 – 双方面 – 孩子抚养权

离婚

  • 单方面离婚
  • 双方面离婚

单方面离婚  (Single Petition)

  • 想要离婚的那一方可以单方面申请离婚。
  • 单方面离婚的程序通常比较复杂，会用比较长的时间，通常是一年或超过一年。
  • 离婚之前，双方必须去婚姻注册局 (“JPN”) 填写 Form KC14.
  • 之后，JPN会通知你的配偶出席和解聆讯 (“application to reference to conciliatory body”).
  • 你和你的配偶必须出席和解聆讯三次。
  • 如果在三次的和解之下JPN证实了你们的婚姻已经破裂，无法挽救，那么你可以联络你的律师帮你申请单方面离婚。
  • 可是，在很多情况之下，被提出离婚的那一方都不会出席和解聆讯。虽然你的配偶不愿意出席，你还是要自己出席和解聆讯三次。第三次和解聆讯之后，JPN会给你一封信，通知你和解聆讯取消因为另一个配偶没有出席。你需要把这一封信交给你的律。
  • 律师在拿了你的这一封信后，需要向法庭申请和解例外（exception for reconciliation). 直到法庭批准你不需要再去JPN和解，你才可以单方面申请离婚。

在申请单方面离婚之前，有什么事需要注意的吗?

  • 第一, 你们的婚姻必须在马来西亚注册的。
  • 第二，在申请离婚时，夫妻一定要住在马来西亚。
  • 第三，从你注册婚姻的日期直到申请离婚的日期，必须多过两年。但是，如果你的婚姻未满两年却想要申请离婚，只有在这两种情况之下可以做到，第一，其中一方夫妻改变信仰，信奉穆斯林。第二，你们的婚姻发生了重大的事情导致双方难以维持婚姻，这种情况将由法官来判定。

还有哪些情况单方面离婚是被允许的？

  • 第一，对方的行为过于恶劣，以至于申请者无法继续跟他做夫妻。打个比喻，家暴。
  • 第二，对方出轨。你需要证据证明你的配偶出轨，例如，你有他和小三的照片，影片，或者是WhatsApp messages.
  • 第三，夫妻二人已经分居了两年或以上。就算你和你的配偶住在同一间屋子，可是分房睡，在法律上也算是分居。
  • 第四，被对方抛弃超过两年。如果你的配偶抛弃了你，你尝试联络他，他却对你避而不见，只要超过两年，你也可以单方面申请离婚。

双方面离婚 (Joint Petition)

  • 只要双方面都同意离婚，他们都不需要指明离婚的原因。
  • 双方只需要在这4方面做出妥善的安排就可以了

  1. 赡养费
  2. 财产的分配
  3. 孩子的抚养权和探视权
  4.  律师费将会由谁来负但

  • 当时所有细节都谈妥后，就可以找律师办理离婚手续，签离婚协议书。
  • 过后法庭便会安排一个时间让双方一起出席法庭的聆讯。
  • 出席聆讯后， 就能得到法庭判决 （离婚协议书）。
  • 得到判决后，并不代表你们已经正式离婚了。
  • 你们需要等三个月，就可以到Putrajaya JPN 更新婚姻状态，双方也就正式离婚。
  • 当然，如果在这三个月内双方不想离婚了，申请者是可以撤销离婚协议书的。
  • 整体来说，双方面离婚会比较简单直接，大概会在3到6个月就能完成这个程序。

孩子的抚养权 (Custody of Child)

  1. 双方面离婚

  • 父母可以自己决定孩子的抚养权归谁。只要能确保爸爸妈妈都有探望孩子的权利，法庭是不会过问孩子的抚养权到底归谁。

  1. 单方面离婚

  • 孩子的抚养权将会交由法庭来宣判。
  • 法庭会依据2点来考虑应该把孩子的抚养权交给爸爸，或妈妈。
  • 孩子的岁数
  • 父母的行为

孩子的岁数

  • 孩子如果是小过七岁，法庭通常会把孩子的抚养权判给妈妈。
  • 不过，如果妈妈是有精神问题还是暴力倾向，那么法庭是不会把小孩判给妈妈。

父母的行为

  • 如果法庭得知父母其中一方的行为不检点，会为孩子带来不良的示范，那么法庭就不会将孩子的抚养权交给那一方。

——————

马来西亚离婚手续视频

https://youtu.be/-UCep6hIRmg

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us