Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AND MAINTENANCE

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AND MAINTENANCE – SUMMARY OF THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AND MAINTENANCE – Summary of the latest decision of the high court

Khoo Boon Chin v Alice Tan Ling Mei [2020] 7 MLJ 437

  • The petitioner (“the husband“) filed a petition against the respondent (“the wife“) to end a marriage of 11 years. They have 2 children, a daughter (11 years old) and a son (4 years old)
  • Reason of divorce: Marriage had irretrievably broken down. The wife was a highly strung person with a short temper, erupted in bouts of violence which had been directed to the daughter and accused the husband of having an affair.
  •  The wife sought for:

i) Custody of both children / alternatively custody of the son;
ii) An order for sale of the 2 matrimonial properties and the proceeds to be divided equally; and/or
iii) The husband to pay a lump sum of RM30,000 as maintenance.

Whether the wife is entitled to custody of both children?

No.

  • The wife was the cause of the daughter’s psychiatric condition. Since the daughter was terrified of her mother, it was not safe for her to be in the mother’s custody.
  • The son was not of an age to express an independent opinion on whether he wishes to be in the mother’s custody.
  • The welfare of the children is the paramount consideration. It would be disruptive to separate both of the children since they are now in a stable environment of family life and school.
  • The wife works late hours (8pm – 4am) at karaoke places and bars where alcohol is available and is unable to control her emotions especially when she was drunk.

Whether matrimonial property subject to division?

No.

  • No evidence to show that the wife had contributed towards the deposit / purchase price of the 1st property.
  • The wife could not identify the location of the 1st property.
  • 2nd property was acquired before marriage. The wife had not done any ‘substantial improvement’ to the 2nd property (‘substantial improvement’ DOES NOT include payment of maintenance fees, electricity, water bills and other utilities).

Whether the wife is entitled to lump sum of maintenance?

No.

  • The wife did not file any reply or pleadings in the petition. This shows that the wife was not serious in pursuing the claim of lump sum maintenance. The demand for maintenance is an afterthought.
  • The offer by the husband to pay the wife a sum of RM30,000 by way of instalments (RM500 per month) is a fair and reasonable offer.

 

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us