Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW — MARRIAGE — VALIDITY OF CUSTOMARY MARRIAGE

In brief

  •  Malaysia is a multi-racial country with people of many races, faiths, customs, and usages. In family matters, each person is ruled by his or her own set of rules. As a result, the Chinese are subject to Chinese personal law, whereas Hindu law oversees members of the Hindu religion in family matters. Muslim families are governed by Islamic family law. The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) went into effect in Malaysia on March 1, 1982. The LRA is an Act to provide for monogamous marriages and the solemnization and registration of such marriages; to reform and consolidate the legislation relating to divorce; and to provide for things incidental thereto, according to the lengthy title. Thus, it should be emphasized that the LRA was implemented, among other things, to facilitate the registration of monogamous marriages.
  •  However, a specific clause in the LRA, Section 34, has created a dilemma regarding whether customary marriages after March 1, 1982, must be registered in order to be recognized by law. Section 34 states the following: “Nothing in this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be construed to render valid or invalid any marriage which otherwise is invalid or valid merely by reason of its having been or not having been registered.”

Whether the marriage solemnization had taken place?

  •  The LRA became legislation on March 1, 1982, and requires all marriages to be registered in order to be considered lawful. As a result, any marriage that is not registered, such as one between a girlfriend and a boyfriend or cohabitants, is considered invalid and provides no protection under family law.
  •  Having said that, all marriages that were not registered but were solemnized under any law, religion, or customary rites prior to March 1, 1982 are still legal marriages and thus valid as long as parties can show proof of solemnization of their marriage, such as certification, eyewitnesses, or, even better, video recording.

Customary Marriages Prior to the LRA

  •  Prior to the implementation of the LRA, customary weddings were not required to be registered. Before establishing whether a customary marriage was solemnized in accordance with the applicable religion, tradition, or usage, courts must look through the evidence presented by feuding parties. This section will look at two types of customary marriages in Malaysia: Chinese customary marriages and Hindu marriages.

a) Chinese Customary Marriages

  • The learned court has put out two factors essential to create a legitimate Chinese marriage in the case of In the Estate of Yeow Kian Kee; Er Gek Cheng v Ho Ying Seng, the first being a consenting marriage, and the second being that the marriage must be one of indefinite length.

b) Hindu Customary Marriages

  • In Ramasamy v. PP10, the appellant was charged with enticing a married woman under section 498 of the Penal Code. One of the arguments advanced by the appellant’s lawyer was that there was insufficient proof of the marriage between the purported seduced lady and the complainant. In order to determine whether a genuine Hindu marriage had occurred, the court in the aforesaid case focused on two factors: first, proof of the actual ceremony, and second, expert testimony to prove that the event constituted a lawful marriage.

Customary Marriages from 1 March 1982

  •  Generally, non-Muslims must marry in conformity with Part III of the LRA starting on March 1, 1982, or their marriages would be declared null and invalid.  Section 5(4) emphasizes this even more by stating that beyond the specified day, no marriage may be solemnized by any law, religion, custom, or usage save as allowed in Part III.
  •  In Venajo Rajoo v R. Ravindran Ramasamy, for example, the judge had to assess whether the plaintiff and defendant were legally married. The learned judge cited section 34 of the LRA and found that the customary marriage solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant was legal under that clause. Because it was not registered, it should not be considered void.
  •  In summarizing the LRA’s goals for solemnizing religious or customary weddings, the court determined that solemnization can only take place if two criteria are met. To begin, the person solemnizing the marriage, whether a religious official from a church or temple or anybody else, must have been authorized as an assistant registrar by the Minister. Secondly, there must have been delivered to the assistant registrar a statutory declaration either under section 24(1) or if marriage is not a religious ceremony, under section 22(3).
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami