Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

法律更新 – 离婚 – 单方面 – 双方面 – 孩子抚养权

离婚

  • 单方面离婚
  • 双方面离婚

单方面离婚  (Single Petition)

  • 想要离婚的那一方可以单方面申请离婚。
  • 单方面离婚的程序通常比较复杂，会用比较长的时间，通常是一年或超过一年。
  • 离婚之前，双方必须去婚姻注册局 (“JPN”) 填写 Form KC14.
  • 之后，JPN会通知你的配偶出席和解聆讯 (“application to reference to conciliatory body”).
  • 你和你的配偶必须出席和解聆讯三次。
  • 如果在三次的和解之下JPN证实了你们的婚姻已经破裂，无法挽救，那么你可以联络你的律师帮你申请单方面离婚。
  • 可是，在很多情况之下，被提出离婚的那一方都不会出席和解聆讯。虽然你的配偶不愿意出席，你还是要自己出席和解聆讯三次。第三次和解聆讯之后，JPN会给你一封信，通知你和解聆讯取消因为另一个配偶没有出席。你需要把这一封信交给你的律。
  • 律师在拿了你的这一封信后，需要向法庭申请和解例外（exception for reconciliation). 直到法庭批准你不需要再去JPN和解，你才可以单方面申请离婚。

在申请单方面离婚之前，有什么事需要注意的吗?

  • 第一, 你们的婚姻必须在马来西亚注册的。
  • 第二，在申请离婚时，夫妻一定要住在马来西亚。
  • 第三，从你注册婚姻的日期直到申请离婚的日期，必须多过两年。但是，如果你的婚姻未满两年却想要申请离婚，只有在这两种情况之下可以做到，第一，其中一方夫妻改变信仰，信奉穆斯林。第二，你们的婚姻发生了重大的事情导致双方难以维持婚姻，这种情况将由法官来判定。

还有哪些情况单方面离婚是被允许的？

  • 第一，对方的行为过于恶劣，以至于申请者无法继续跟他做夫妻。打个比喻，家暴。
  • 第二，对方出轨。你需要证据证明你的配偶出轨，例如，你有他和小三的照片，影片，或者是WhatsApp messages.
  • 第三，夫妻二人已经分居了两年或以上。就算你和你的配偶住在同一间屋子，可是分房睡，在法律上也算是分居。
  • 第四，被对方抛弃超过两年。如果你的配偶抛弃了你，你尝试联络他，他却对你避而不见，只要超过两年，你也可以单方面申请离婚。

双方面离婚 (Joint Petition)

  • 只要双方面都同意离婚，他们都不需要指明离婚的原因。
  • 双方只需要在这4方面做出妥善的安排就可以了

  1. 赡养费
  2. 财产的分配
  3. 孩子的抚养权和探视权
  4.  律师费将会由谁来负但

  • 当时所有细节都谈妥后，就可以找律师办理离婚手续，签离婚协议书。
  • 过后法庭便会安排一个时间让双方一起出席法庭的聆讯。
  • 出席聆讯后， 就能得到法庭判决 （离婚协议书）。
  • 得到判决后，并不代表你们已经正式离婚了。
  • 你们需要等三个月，就可以到Putrajaya JPN 更新婚姻状态，双方也就正式离婚。
  • 当然，如果在这三个月内双方不想离婚了，申请者是可以撤销离婚协议书的。
  • 整体来说，双方面离婚会比较简单直接，大概会在3到6个月就能完成这个程序。

孩子的抚养权 (Custody of Child)

  1. 双方面离婚

  • 父母可以自己决定孩子的抚养权归谁。只要能确保爸爸妈妈都有探望孩子的权利，法庭是不会过问孩子的抚养权到底归谁。

  1. 单方面离婚

  • 孩子的抚养权将会交由法庭来宣判。
  • 法庭会依据2点来考虑应该把孩子的抚养权交给爸爸，或妈妈。
  • 孩子的岁数
  • 父母的行为

孩子的岁数

  • 孩子如果是小过七岁，法庭通常会把孩子的抚养权判给妈妈。
  • 不过，如果妈妈是有精神问题还是暴力倾向，那么法庭是不会把小孩判给妈妈。

父母的行为

  • 如果法庭得知父母其中一方的行为不检点，会为孩子带来不良的示范，那么法庭就不会将孩子的抚养权交给那一方。

——————

马来西亚离婚手续视频

https://youtu.be/-UCep6hIRmg

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH