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

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 No Comments

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us