Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

1. Summary and Facts:
Kanasasingam A/L Kandiah v Shireen A/P Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494 concerns an application by the former husband (plaintiff) to set aside spousal maintenance orders on the grounds of fraud. After the divorce in 2011, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay spousal and child maintenance. In April 2012, the first defendant remarried but did not register or disclose the marriage. Despite her remarriage, she continued enforcing spousal maintenance through contempt proceedings from 2012 to 2019, leading to several consent orders and the plaintiff’s imprisonment for 51 days in 2019. Upon discovering the remarriage, the plaintiff filed a suit alleging fraudulent concealment and collusion, seeking to set aside the maintenance related orders, recover the sums paid, and claim damages.

2. Legal Issues:

  • Whether the first defendant fraudulently concealed her remarriage while continuing to receive and enforce spousal maintenance.
  • Whether the first defendant was “living in adultery” before her remarriage, which would have terminated her entitlement to maintenance under Section 82 of the Law Reform Act 1976.
  • Whether the consent and committal orders could be set aside for fraud under Section 44 of the Evidence Act 1950.
  • Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement and damages.

3. Court’s Findings:

  • The court allowed the plaintiff’s claim in part.
  • Alleged adultery before decree nisi was not proven, therefore the plaintiff failed on that ground.
  • The first defendant fraudulently concealed her remarriage, maintenance automatically ceased under Section 82.
  • The Court held that the plaintiff’s consent to the consent orders was procured by fraud. Applying the principle fraus omnia corrumpit (fraud corrupts everything), the entire consent framework was tainted.
  • The consent orders and resulting committal order were set aside.
  • The court awarded reimbursement of RM310,000 of spousal maintenance. The court also awarded:
  • a) Aggravated damages: RM400,000
  • b) Exemplary damages: RM300,000
  • Costs of RM200,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Child maintenance obligations remained valid and unaffected.
  • There is evidence of collusion with the second defendant

4. Practical Implications:
This judgment affirms the several principle of laws including:

  • Divorced spouses must disclose remarriage as the failure to do so can be deemed fraud.
  • Mere cohabitation to marry does not terminate maintenance as adultery claims require strong proof.
  • Any collusion to mislead the court increases liability and damages.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN