Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – ADULTERY AND MAINTENANCE

Adultery is a legal ground for divorce. However, complication arises in proving adultery. This legal update covers proof and effect when adultery is proven as well as maintenance of wife and children.
How is adultery proven?
  • In law, adultery has to be proven on the balance of probabilities. Adultery is not a crime in Malaysia. You don’t have to prove adultery beyond reasonable doubt. However, due to the serious nature of the allegation, the courts have consistently required high degree of probability as proof.
  • The easiest way to prove adultery is by engaging private investigator. However, it is of crucial importance to pay attention to avoid being scammed by fake private investigators.
  • Private investigators can be called to give evidence in court and the report of their surveillance. Normally, these reports would contain photographs and videos of respondent and co-respondent co-habiting together. Circumstantial evidence of adultery suffices. There is no need to produce evidence of “living in adultery”. Circumstantial evidence of act of voluntary sexual intercourse is enough.
  • Next, it must also be proved that the adultery is the cause of the breakdown of marriage. This is where the other party can produce evidence to show that the marriage had crumbled long before adultery.
What happened after adultery is proven?
  • Besides being a legal ground for divorce i.e. breakdown of marriage, a petitioner may also claim damages for adultery against the co-respondent (the third party in layman terms) for damages under Section 59 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA 1976”).
  • Damages awarded are compensatory in nature. Assessment would be on losses to restore the petitioner (and the children if any) to the life they would have enjoyed if the break-up had no occurred.
  • Damages would be monetary in nature. It is at the discretion of the court.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the wife?
  • Section 77 of the LRA 1976 gives power to the court to order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife.
  • However, there is no automatic right for a woman to claim maintenance from her husband. The court will consider many of the following circumstances:
  • Means and needs of the parties in Section 78; and
  • Length of marriage.
  • In considering “means and needs of the parties”, the court will analyse the earnings of both the husband and wife. If the wife is a of an able-bodied person and has the means to support and maintain herself, little or no maintenance would be ordered. This is also termed as “self-sufficient” and “self-reliant”.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the child (if any)?
  • Yes. There is a duty for both parents to maintain and contribute to the maintenance of the child. The cost will be half for the child’s health, accommodation, clothing, food and education. This is provided in Section 92 of the LRA 1976.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

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 »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY