Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW- DIVORCE- ADULTERY

I have recently found out that my husband has a mistress. I am very disappointed. I want to leave him but he does not want to agree to a divorce. Can I sue him and the mistress?

  • Your husband would have committed adultery if there is any sexual misconduct with another woman.
  • Adultery is not a crime. However, adultery can be used as a ground to end your marriage. You may also bring a civil suit against both your husband and the mistress as a co-respondent for damages.

Q: Can I end the marriage without him agreeing to it?

  • Yes, if one party to a marriage finds it intolerable to live with the spouse who has committed adultery, he/she may file a divorce as it is the reason of the marriage break down.
  • You may file single petition for divorce.

~ S.54 (1) (a) Law of Reform Act 1976

Q: Can I sue my husband’s mistress alone as she is the one who seduced my husband?

  • When you file for divorce against your husband on the ground of adultery, your husband will be made a ‘respondent’. The mistress can be made a ‘co-respondent’.
  • So, you can bring an action against the mistress when you file for divorce against your husband but not independently against the mistress.
  • The mistress may not be charged for having extramarital affair but she can be ordered by court to pay monetary compensation to you as she has contributed to the break down of your marriage irretrievably.
  • If the adultery is proven, then your husband’s mistress will need to pay monetary damage that the court thinks reasonable to the innocent party.

Q: What do I need in order to prove adultery?

  • The courts will consider the evidence adduced or witnesses’ testimony to conclude if there is any adultery.
  • You are advised to keep evidence of adultery such as the intimate pictures, text messages with the mistress, birth certificate of the illegitimate child or confession/admissions by the parties themselves.
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