Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – PETITION

In brief 

  •  Every marriage solemnized in Malaysia after March 1, 1982 will last until it is dissolved (a) by the death of one of the parties; (b) by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (c) by a court of competent jurisdiction declaring the marriage invalid and void.  The High Court of Malaya has exclusive authority to handle divorce and matrimonial cases under Section 24 of the Courts Judicature Act 1964.

How to get a divorce?

  • They are eligible to apply for a divorce by way of a joint petition under Section 52 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 if the parties agreed to the divorce, one of them is domiciled in Malaysia (or a Malaysian citizen), and they have been married for at least two (2) years at the time of the presentation of the Petition for Divorce (Act 164).
  •  On the other hand, if one of the parties does not agree with the divorce or cannot agree on the conditions of the divorce, they might hire an attorney to file a single petition. Hence, it will be conducted by the Marriage Tribunal at the National Registration Department of Malaysia as both parties are required to attend the meeting before the single petition has been filed.

What do I need to do in order to file for divorce in Malaysia?

  •  Under S.48(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) must be compiled before a decree of divorce can be made by the court where it states that the marriage must be registered or deemed to be registered under Malaysian law or a foreign legislation that recognizes monogamy. Except in unusual or hardship instances, both parties live in Malaysia or consider Malaysia to be their permanent home, and both parties have been married for at least two years.

Q. What if the husband is neither a Malaysian resident nor a Malaysian citizen? Does the court still have authority to proceed with the divorce petition?

A. In these circumstances, the court still has the additional jurisdiction in proceedings as the wife has to prove that she has been deserted by the husband or the husband has been deported from Malaysia and she must be a resident in Malaysia for a period of 2 years.

Conciliation and Reconciliation under Section 106 of LRA 1976

  •  After determining that all attempts at reconciliation had failed, the court would decree a divorce of marriage. In reality, prior to filing for divorce, attempts at reconciliation are required. That is, every divorce petition must describe what measures were done to reconcile the parties.
  •  According to Section 106 of the LRA, the marital conflict must be submitted to a conciliatory authority before filing a petition for divorce in court. Unless one or more of the exceptions listed under sub-sections (1)(i)–(vi) of section 106 of the LRA apply, a spouse intending to petition for divorce on the grounds that his or her marriage has irretrievably broken down must have first referred the matrimonial difficulty to a conciliatory body and obtained a certificate from that body confirming that it has failed to reconcile the parties. These exceptions apply in cases where the respondent has been imprisoned for five years or more; or has deserted the petitioner and the petitioner has no idea where the respondent is; or l the respondent resides abroad and is unlikely to enter the jurisdiction within six months after the date of the petition.

Q. If you had filed a divorce petition and the court agreed with it, however, how does the court divide the matrimonial assets after a divorce?

A. The court can split assets acquired during the marriage by joint efforts of the spouses, or assets possessed prior to marriage by one spouse and significantly enhanced during the marriage by the other spouse or through their joint efforts. It’s also worth noting that the court won’t always divide the assets EQUALLY; instead, the court will usually divide the assets/money based on the facts of the case, taking into account either spouse’s contribution in money, assets, work, or debts for the benefit of both parties, as well as the needs of young children.

Sorotan Terkini

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami