Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – ADULTERY AND MAINTENANCE

Adultery is a legal ground for divorce. However, complication arises in proving adultery. This legal update covers proof and effect when adultery is proven as well as maintenance of wife and children.
How is adultery proven?
  • In law, adultery has to be proven on the balance of probabilities. Adultery is not a crime in Malaysia. You don’t have to prove adultery beyond reasonable doubt. However, due to the serious nature of the allegation, the courts have consistently required high degree of probability as proof.
  • The easiest way to prove adultery is by engaging private investigator. However, it is of crucial importance to pay attention to avoid being scammed by fake private investigators.
  • Private investigators can be called to give evidence in court and the report of their surveillance. Normally, these reports would contain photographs and videos of respondent and co-respondent co-habiting together. Circumstantial evidence of adultery suffices. There is no need to produce evidence of “living in adultery”. Circumstantial evidence of act of voluntary sexual intercourse is enough.
  • Next, it must also be proved that the adultery is the cause of the breakdown of marriage. This is where the other party can produce evidence to show that the marriage had crumbled long before adultery.
What happened after adultery is proven?
  • Besides being a legal ground for divorce i.e. breakdown of marriage, a petitioner may also claim damages for adultery against the co-respondent (the third party in layman terms) for damages under Section 59 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA 1976”).
  • Damages awarded are compensatory in nature. Assessment would be on losses to restore the petitioner (and the children if any) to the life they would have enjoyed if the break-up had no occurred.
  • Damages would be monetary in nature. It is at the discretion of the court.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the wife?
  • Section 77 of the LRA 1976 gives power to the court to order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife.
  • However, there is no automatic right for a woman to claim maintenance from her husband. The court will consider many of the following circumstances:
  • Means and needs of the parties in Section 78; and
  • Length of marriage.
  • In considering “means and needs of the parties”, the court will analyse the earnings of both the husband and wife. If the wife is a of an able-bodied person and has the means to support and maintain herself, little or no maintenance would be ordered. This is also termed as “self-sufficient” and “self-reliant”.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the child (if any)?
  • Yes. There is a duty for both parents to maintain and contribute to the maintenance of the child. The cost will be half for the child’s health, accommodation, clothing, food and education. This is provided in Section 92 of the LRA 1976.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH