Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Divorce Family Law

法律更新 – 家庭法律 – 在有条件管制令期间我可以离婚吗?

走到尽,个性重大不适,无法相, 行管制令期间如果决定段婚姻, 我可以申请离婚?

根据我国的《1976年法律改革(结婚和离婚)法》, 倘若双方协议离婚, 双方面离​​婚呈请书需3个月的时间完成手续,便可解除夫妻关系; 而单方面离婚呈请书审讯时间则视个别案件而定。

如婚姻未2年,则不能提交离婚呈请, 但是一些状况除外, 例如:

第一类: 夫妻之一方改变信仰,信奉穆斯林;或第二类: 发生重大事而导致双方难以维持婚姻, 法官将会进行综合评量而裁定。根据上述情况, 案件可在结婚2年内提交离婚呈请书

在未得法院判决之前, 若生以下状况,我怎么?

个案一: 另一半未经我的同意擅自将小孩带离家庭; 或个案二:我与另一半已经离婚了,他却未经同意对我在肢体上进行亲密性骚扰行为, 我该怎么办?   个案一, 擅自将小孩带离家庭导致另一方无法与自己的小孩一起, 这已造成侵害身为父亲/母亲的亲权便可向法庭申请临时禁制令。个案二, 有些夫妻即便完成离婚手续依然同居, 处于这状况之下,其中一方若在未经同意的情况下有肢体上亲密的接触,造成另一方感到不舒服便可向法庭申请临时禁止令。

谓临时禁止令?

临时禁止令的存在是保护申请人, 要求另一方立即停止做某种事宜 , 一旦违反,等同触犯临时禁制令, 将会被依法起诉。

在有条件管制令期间我可以申请临时禁止令?

可以。

Recent Post

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 »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们