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

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们