Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – PETITION

In brief 

  •  Every marriage solemnized in Malaysia after March 1, 1982 will last until it is dissolved (a) by the death of one of the parties; (b) by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (c) by a court of competent jurisdiction declaring the marriage invalid and void.  The High Court of Malaya has exclusive authority to handle divorce and matrimonial cases under Section 24 of the Courts Judicature Act 1964.

How to get a divorce?

  • They are eligible to apply for a divorce by way of a joint petition under Section 52 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 if the parties agreed to the divorce, one of them is domiciled in Malaysia (or a Malaysian citizen), and they have been married for at least two (2) years at the time of the presentation of the Petition for Divorce (Act 164).
  •  On the other hand, if one of the parties does not agree with the divorce or cannot agree on the conditions of the divorce, they might hire an attorney to file a single petition. Hence, it will be conducted by the Marriage Tribunal at the National Registration Department of Malaysia as both parties are required to attend the meeting before the single petition has been filed.

What do I need to do in order to file for divorce in Malaysia?

  •  Under S.48(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) must be compiled before a decree of divorce can be made by the court where it states that the marriage must be registered or deemed to be registered under Malaysian law or a foreign legislation that recognizes monogamy. Except in unusual or hardship instances, both parties live in Malaysia or consider Malaysia to be their permanent home, and both parties have been married for at least two years.

Q. What if the husband is neither a Malaysian resident nor a Malaysian citizen? Does the court still have authority to proceed with the divorce petition?

A. In these circumstances, the court still has the additional jurisdiction in proceedings as the wife has to prove that she has been deserted by the husband or the husband has been deported from Malaysia and she must be a resident in Malaysia for a period of 2 years.

Conciliation and Reconciliation under Section 106 of LRA 1976

  •  After determining that all attempts at reconciliation had failed, the court would decree a divorce of marriage. In reality, prior to filing for divorce, attempts at reconciliation are required. That is, every divorce petition must describe what measures were done to reconcile the parties.
  •  According to Section 106 of the LRA, the marital conflict must be submitted to a conciliatory authority before filing a petition for divorce in court. Unless one or more of the exceptions listed under sub-sections (1)(i)–(vi) of section 106 of the LRA apply, a spouse intending to petition for divorce on the grounds that his or her marriage has irretrievably broken down must have first referred the matrimonial difficulty to a conciliatory body and obtained a certificate from that body confirming that it has failed to reconcile the parties. These exceptions apply in cases where the respondent has been imprisoned for five years or more; or has deserted the petitioner and the petitioner has no idea where the respondent is; or l the respondent resides abroad and is unlikely to enter the jurisdiction within six months after the date of the petition.

Q. If you had filed a divorce petition and the court agreed with it, however, how does the court divide the matrimonial assets after a divorce?

A. The court can split assets acquired during the marriage by joint efforts of the spouses, or assets possessed prior to marriage by one spouse and significantly enhanced during the marriage by the other spouse or through their joint efforts. It’s also worth noting that the court won’t always divide the assets EQUALLY; instead, the court will usually divide the assets/money based on the facts of the case, taking into account either spouse’s contribution in money, assets, work, or debts for the benefit of both parties, as well as the needs of young children.

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »
en_USEN