1. Summary and Facts:
Kanasasingam A/L Kandiah v Shireen A/P Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494 concerns an application by the former husband (plaintiff) to set aside spousal maintenance orders on the grounds of fraud. After the divorce in 2011, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay spousal and child maintenance. In April 2012, the first defendant remarried but did not register or disclose the marriage. Despite her remarriage, she continued enforcing spousal maintenance through contempt proceedings from 2012 to 2019, leading to several consent orders and the plaintiff’s imprisonment for 51 days in 2019. Upon discovering the remarriage, the plaintiff filed a suit alleging fraudulent concealment and collusion, seeking to set aside the maintenance related orders, recover the sums paid, and claim damages.

2. Legal Issues:

• Whether the first defendant fraudulently concealed her remarriage while continuing to receive and enforce spousal maintenance.
• Whether the first defendant was “living in adultery” before her remarriage, which would have terminated her entitlement to maintenance under Section 82 of the Law Reform Act 1976.
• Whether the consent and committal orders could be set aside for fraud under Section 44 of the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement and damages.

3. Court’s Findings:

• The court allowed the plaintiff’s claim in part.
• Alleged adultery before decree nisi was not proven, therefore the plaintiff failed on that ground.
• The first defendant fraudulently concealed her remarriage, maintenance automatically ceased under Section 82.
• The Court held that the plaintiff’s consent to the consent orders was procured by fraud. Applying the principle fraus omnia corrumpit (fraud corrupts everything), the entire consent framework was tainted.
• The consent orders and resulting committal order were set aside.
• The court awarded reimbursement of RM310,000 of spousal maintenance. The court also awarded:
• a) Aggravated damages: RM400,000
• b) Exemplary damages: RM300,000
• Costs of RM200,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
• Child maintenance obligations remained valid and unaffected.
• There is evidence of collusion with the second defendant

4. Practical Implications:
This judgment affirms the several principle of laws including:

• Divorced spouses must disclose remarriage as the failure to do so can be deemed fraud.
• Mere cohabitation to marry does not terminate maintenance as adultery claims require strong proof.
• Any collusion to mislead the court increases liability and damages.