Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ADULTERY WITHOUT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

1. Illustrative scenario:

The petitioner, a husband, filed for the dissolution of his marriage to the respondent, his wife, on the basis that their marriage had irretrievably broken down due to their separation for at least two continuous years immediately before the petition was filed.

The respondent wife acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to the separation but also sought dissolution on the grounds of adultery. She successfully added the alleged adulteress (woman X) as a party to the petition. However, the wife did not seek any damages or relief against woman X.

The key legal questions presented are

  • Is the separation alone, which led to an irretrievable breakdown, sufficient to grant a divorce decree without the need to investigate the adultery claim?
  • Is it unnecessary to delve into the adultery allegation when no damages or relief are being sought against the alleged adulteress?.

2. The Applicable Principles:

  • s.54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (‘the LRMDA’) outlines four grounds for proving that a marriage has irretrievably broken down: adultery, unreasonable behavior, desertion, or having lived apart for at least two continuous years immediately before filing the petition.
  • If both parties agree that they have lived apart for the required two years, further inquiry into whether the marriage has also irretrievably broken down due to adultery is not necessary.
  • The LRMDA aims to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down with minimal bitterness, distress, and humiliation, where fault is not relevant for the divorce grant.
  • While adultery can be examined during the trial, if there is no claim for damages or relief against the adulteress, pursuing this issue would be considered frivolous and could unnecessarily delay the divorce proceedings. Such claims may be dismissed by the court to avoid undue delays.

Reference cases:

  • Premganesh a/l Dr K Ganaisan v. Nagaletchumy a/p Thangarasu & Anor [2023] 8 MLJ 286
  • SS v. HJK [1991] MLJU 18
  •  
Back to Latest Legal Updates

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们