Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – SINGLE PETITION – JOINT PETITION – CHILD’S CUSTODY AND GUARDIANSHIP

2 Ways to file for Divorce

  • Single Petition
  • Joint Petition

Single Petition

  • EITHER party who wants to divorce can petition the court for divorce.
  • Single Petition is more complicated. It takes longer time. Usually, it takes one or more than 1 year if it is disputed.
  • Before the filing of single petition, both the husband and wife (“both parties”) are required to attend three (3) sessions of counselling/reconciliation.
  • Both parties are required to go to Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (“JPN”) and fill up Form KC14.
  • Thereafter, both parties will be referred to a conciliatory body.
  • JPN officer will arrange three (3) marriage counselling sessions. Attendance is compulsory.
  • If either party fails/refuses to attend to the counselling session, JPN will issue a failure to reconcile letter.
  • You are required to forward the letter to your lawyer. Your lawyer will have to file in an application to the Court to exempt you from having to re-attend counselling/reconciliation session.
  • After obtaining the order for exemption of reconciliation from the Court, you may then proceed to file in your Single Petition.

What are the requirements to file in a Single Petition?

  • The marriage is registered in Malaysia;
  • Both parties reside in Malaysia; and
  • Both parties are married for at least two (2) years.

Exceptions to the requirements: –
1. One party to the marriage has converted to Islam; and/or
2. The marriage has irretrievably broken down by some other reasons.

Under what circumstances I can file a Single Petition?

  • One of the parties in the marriage has behaved in such a way that the other party could not live with him/her (ie. domestic violence);
  • One of the parties to the marriage has committed adultery;
  • Both parties have lived apart for at least two (2) years before the filing of the Single Petition; and/or
  • One of the parties in the marriage has deserted another party for at least two (2) years before the filing in of the Single Petition.

 Joint Petition

  • BOTH parties mutually agree to dissolve their marriage.
  • No requirement to prove that the marriage has broken down.
  • Arrangements must be made for: –
    1. Maintenance;
    2. Division of matrimonial assets;
    3. Children’s custody & visitation; and/or
    4. Who bears the legal fee.
  • After the filing of the Joint Petition, a hearing date will be set for the court to consider the Joint Petition.
  • Both parties are required to attend court on the scheduled date for hearing of the Joint Petition.
  • Both parties will be granted a Decree Nisi for divorce. If there is no objection raised, the Decree Nisi will be made absolute (Absolute Decree) after three (3) months.
  • When a decree is made absolute, both parties will be considered single again.
  • The entire process will take approximately three (3) to five (5) months depending on Court’s schedule.

What happens to the child after divorce?

Custody of Child

  • Custody of the child can be agreed upon to be given to either parent in a Joint Petition.
  • Custody relates to who takes care of the child’s daily needs. Access can be granted by the other party who does not have custody.
  • However, if custody is disputed, the Court will decide custody of the child after taking into consideration of: –
    1. The welfare of the child;
    2. The wishes of the parents; and/or
    3. The wishes of the child, if he/she is capable to express an  independent opinion.
  • If the child is below seven (7) years old, the Court would presume that it is for the best interest of the child to be with his/her mother.
  • However, this presumption is rebuttable if any parties can provide proof that the mother is not fit to have the custody of the child.

Guardianship of Child

  • Usually, joint guardianship will be granted to both parents.
  • Guardianship relates to control and management of the child’s property, religion, support, health and education.
  • The Court will decide the guardianship of the child after taking into consideration: –
    1. The welfare of the child; and/or
    2. The wishes of the parents.
  • The Court may at any time remove any guardian or appoint another person to be the guardian of the child.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us