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

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