Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – REDEFINING SPOUSAL SUPPORT – FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

1. Illustrative scenario:

X (husband) and Y (wife) are both employed as insurance agents. They registered their marriage in October 2014 and welcomed their son, Z, in 2016.

Over time, their marriage deteriorated due to frequent arguments and conflicts. Y accused X of having extramarital affairs based solely on a shirtless selfie. Y further escalated tensions by uploading a video with disparaging remarks about X, knowingly tarnishing his image and reputation.

In 2019, Y and Z left the matrimonial home. In October 2020, Y filed for divorce, and X responded with a cross-petition in December 2020.

Y seeks a one-time spousal maintenance payment of RM750,000 from X, and maintenance for Z either as a lump sum of RM1.8 million or a monthly amount of RM15,000.

Issues:

  • Should financially independent women expect spousal maintenance from their former husbands upon divorce?
  • In the current age of gender equality, should financially self-reliant women share the responsibility of maintaining themselves and their children after divorce?

2. Laws & Legal Principles:

  • Section 77(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRMDA) grants the court discretionary power to order spousal maintenance, as indicated by the use of the term ‘may’.
  • When assessing maintenance, the court considers the degree of responsibility for the marriage breakdown and applies the ‘means and needs’ test according to Section 78 of the LRMDA 1976.
  • Key factors in the ‘means and needs’ test:
  • The current and foreseeable future income, earning capacity, property, or financial resources of each party;
  • The current and foreseeable future financial needs, obligations, and responsibilities of each party;
  • The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the marriage breakdown;
  • Any existing health, physical, or mental disabilities of the parties;
  • The respective contributions of each party to the welfare of the family; and
  • The duration of the marriage.

3. Application to Scenario:

  • In this scenario, the court is likely to find that the marriage’s irretrievable breakdown was due to Y’s actions, as there is no solid evidence supporting her allegations of adultery against X.
  • Regarding the ‘means and needs’ test, the fact that Y never sought interim maintenance while living apart from X raises questions about the urgency of her financial needs. Given Y’s ability to earn sufficient income, it would be unjust for X to bear perpetual spousal maintenance. The court will likely require Y to share the financial responsibility for their child, Z.

4. Reference cases:

  • ACH v PAY [2024] 8 MLJ 114
  • Shameni Pillai a/p PB Rajedran v. S Arulselvam a/l Sanggilly and Rafidah bt Mat Taib (responden bersama) [2010] MLJU 1333; [2011] 6 CLJ 782
  • V Sandrasagaran Veerapan Raman v. Deetarassar [1999] 5 CLJ 474
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