Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

法律更新 – 离婚 – 单方面 – 双方面 – 孩子抚养权

离婚

  • 单方面离婚
  • 双方面离婚

单方面离婚  (Single Petition)

  • 想要离婚的那一方可以单方面申请离婚。
  • 单方面离婚的程序通常比较复杂,会用比较长的时间,通常是一年或超过一年。
  • 离婚之前,双方必须去婚姻注册局 (“JPN”) 填写 Form KC14.
  • 之后,JPN会通知你的配偶出席和解聆讯 (“application to reference to conciliatory body”).
  • 你和你的配偶必须出席和解聆讯三次。
  • 如果在三次的和解之下JPN证实了你们的婚姻已经破裂,无法挽救,那么你可以联络你的律师帮你申请单方面离婚。
  • 可是,在很多情况之下,被提出离婚的那一方都不会出席和解聆讯。虽然你的配偶不愿意出席,你还是要自己出席和解聆讯三次。第三次和解聆讯之后,JPN会给你一封信,通知你和解聆讯取消因为另一个配偶没有出席。你需要把这一封信交给你的律。
  • 律师在拿了你的这一封信后,需要向法庭申请和解例外(exception for reconciliation). 直到法庭批准你不需要再去JPN和解,你才可以单方面申请离婚。

在申请单方面离婚之前,有什么事需要注意的吗?

  • 第一, 你们的婚姻必须在马来西亚注册的。
  • 第二,在申请离婚时,夫妻一定要住在马来西亚。
  • 第三,从你注册婚姻的日期直到申请离婚的日期,必须多过两年。但是,如果你的婚姻未满两年却想要申请离婚,只有在这两种情况之下可以做到,第一,其中一方夫妻改变信仰,信奉穆斯林。第二,你们的婚姻发生了重大的事情导致双方难以维持婚姻,这种情况将由法官来判定。

还有哪些情况单方面离婚是被允许的?

  • 第一,对方的行为过于恶劣,以至于申请者无法继续跟他做夫妻。打个比喻,家暴。
  • 第二,对方出轨。你需要证据证明你的配偶出轨,例如,你有他和小三的照片,影片,或者是WhatsApp messages.
  • 第三,夫妻二人已经分居了两年或以上。就算你和你的配偶住在同一间屋子,可是分房睡,在法律上也算是分居。
  • 第四,被对方抛弃超过两年。如果你的配偶抛弃了你,你尝试联络他,他却对你避而不见,只要超过两年,你也可以单方面申请离婚。

双方面离婚 (Joint Petition)

  • 只要双方面都同意离婚,他们都不需要指明离婚的原因。
  • 双方只需要在这4方面做出妥善的安排就可以了

  1. 赡养
  2. 财产的分
  3. 孩子的抚养权和探视权
  4.  师费将会由谁来负

  • 当时所有细节都谈妥后,就可以找律师办理离婚手续,签离婚协议书。
  • 过后法庭便会安排一个时间让双方一起出席法庭的聆讯。
  • 出席聆讯后, 就能得到法庭判决 (离婚协议书)。
  • 得到判决后,并不代表你们已经正式离婚了。
  • 你们需要等三个月,就可以到Putrajaya JPN 更新婚姻状态,双方也就正式离婚。
  • 当然,如果在这三个月内双方不想离婚了,申请者是可以撤销离婚协议书的。
  • 整体来说,双方面离婚会比较简单直接,大概会在3到6个月就能完成这个程序。

孩子的抚养权 (Custody of Child)

  1. 双方面离婚

  • 父母可以自己决定孩子的抚养权归谁。只要能确保爸爸妈妈都有探望孩子的权利,法庭是不会过问孩子的抚养权到底归谁。

  1. 单方面离婚

  • 孩子的抚养权将会交由法庭来宣判。
  • 法庭会依据2点来考虑应该把孩子的抚养权交给爸爸,或妈妈。
  • 孩子的岁数
  • 父母的行为

孩子的岁数

  • 孩子如果是小过七岁,法庭通常会把孩子的抚养权判给妈妈。
  • 不过,如果妈妈是有精神问题还是暴力倾向,那么法庭是不会把小孩判给妈妈。

父母的行为

  • 如果法庭得知父母其中一方的行为不检点,会为孩子带来不良的示范,那么法庭就不会将孩子的抚养权交给那一方。

——————

马来西亚离婚手续视频

https://youtu.be/-UCep6hIRmg

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们