Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN