Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

Understanding Annulment of Marriage in Malaysian Law

  1. Overview of Annulment of Marriage in Malaysia:

The annulment of marriage in Malaysia is regulated under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976. A distinction is made between a void marriage, which is deemed invalid from the time of solemnisation, and a voidable marriage, which remains valid from solemnisation until annulled by the court. The High Court has jurisdiction over granting a decree of nullity for both void and voidable marriages.

Under s.70 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“the Act”), the grounds for a voidable marriage include:

  • Non-consummation due to incapacity of either party (s.70(a));
  • Non-consummation due to wilful refusal of the respondent (s.70(b));
  • Invalid consent due to duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind, or other factors (s.70(c));
  • Mental disorder of a party rendering them unfit for marriage (s.70(d));
  • Respondent suffering from communicable venereal disease at marriage time (s.70(e));
  • Respondent being pregnant by someone other than the petitioner at marriage time (s.70(f)).
  • Key Issues and Interpretations:
  • A petition for nullity under Section 70 must be specific and precise.
  • Evidence Consideration for ‘Incapacity to Consummate’ (s.70(a))
  • The crux of s.70(a) is the presence of psychological or sexual aversion.
  • Annulment cannot be based solely on mutual agreement to not consummate.
  • Defining “Wilful Refusal to Consummate” (s.70(b))
  • ‘Wilful refusal’ is legally interpreted as a resolute decision made without justified reasons.
  • A petition for nullity on this ground must solely involve the respondent’s willful refusal, not a mutual disinterest in consummation or the marriage itself.

Case Reference: Re Kirthiga Suthan a/l Kathiravellu & Anor [2023] 12 MLJ
This recent ruling highlights and clarifies the application of Section 70 of the Act, offering valuable insight into the nuances of marriage annulment under Malaysian law

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 4 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们