Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – ADULTERY AND MAINTENANCE

Adultery is a legal ground for divorce. However, complication arises in proving adultery. This legal update covers proof and effect when adultery is proven as well as maintenance of wife and children.
How is adultery proven?
  • In law, adultery has to be proven on the balance of probabilities. Adultery is not a crime in Malaysia. You don’t have to prove adultery beyond reasonable doubt. However, due to the serious nature of the allegation, the courts have consistently required high degree of probability as proof.
  • The easiest way to prove adultery is by engaging private investigator. However, it is of crucial importance to pay attention to avoid being scammed by fake private investigators.
  • Private investigators can be called to give evidence in court and the report of their surveillance. Normally, these reports would contain photographs and videos of respondent and co-respondent co-habiting together. Circumstantial evidence of adultery suffices. There is no need to produce evidence of “living in adultery”. Circumstantial evidence of act of voluntary sexual intercourse is enough.
  • Next, it must also be proved that the adultery is the cause of the breakdown of marriage. This is where the other party can produce evidence to show that the marriage had crumbled long before adultery.
What happened after adultery is proven?
  • Besides being a legal ground for divorce i.e. breakdown of marriage, a petitioner may also claim damages for adultery against the co-respondent (the third party in layman terms) for damages under Section 59 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA 1976”).
  • Damages awarded are compensatory in nature. Assessment would be on losses to restore the petitioner (and the children if any) to the life they would have enjoyed if the break-up had no occurred.
  • Damages would be monetary in nature. It is at the discretion of the court.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the wife?
  • Section 77 of the LRA 1976 gives power to the court to order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife.
  • However, there is no automatic right for a woman to claim maintenance from her husband. The court will consider many of the following circumstances:
  • Means and needs of the parties in Section 78; and
  • Length of marriage.
  • In considering “means and needs of the parties”, the court will analyse the earnings of both the husband and wife. If the wife is a of an able-bodied person and has the means to support and maintain herself, little or no maintenance would be ordered. This is also termed as “self-sufficient” and “self-reliant”.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the child (if any)?
  • Yes. There is a duty for both parents to maintain and contribute to the maintenance of the child. The cost will be half for the child’s health, accommodation, clothing, food and education. This is provided in Section 92 of the LRA 1976.

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us