The court emphasized the importance of the 'means and needs' test in determining spousal maintenance and affirmed joint guardianship for the child while ordering child maintenance payments.

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] The Petitioner-Husband filed a divorce petition, seeking joint guardianship and custody of the child of the marriage, along with the division of matrimonial assets. In response, the Respondent-Wife cross-petitioned for sole guardianship and custody of the child, as well as child and spousal maintenance.

[2] To protect the privacy of the parties, and due to the sensitive nature of the issues involved, the Petitioner-Husband and Respondent-Wife have been anonymised in this judgment as TIN and HIN, respectively.

The Factual Background

[3] The Petitioner, a French citizen and the Respondent, a Malaysian (collectively "the Parties"), were married in France in September 2012, and subsequently registered the marriage in Malaysia in March 2013. Their marriage resulted in the birth of their son ("the Child") in November 2016.

[4] After their marriage, the Parties lived in France before moving to Sabah in 2013 and later relocating to Kuala Lumpur.

[5] Despite the increasing strain in their marriage, the Parties mutually agreed for the Respondent to undergo in-vitro fertilisation ("IVF") to conceive the Child. However, their relationship continued to deteriorate. Undeterred, the Respondent pursued additional IVF treatments in an attempt to have another child, though these efforts were unsuccessful.

[6] The marriage ultimately broke down when the Petitioner moved out of their shared bedroom in June 2020. In July 2020, he left the matrimonial home, and in March 2022, he filed for divorce ("the Divorce Petition"). The Respondent subsequently filed a cross-petition ("the Cross-Petition") and reply to the Divorce Petition in May 2022.

The Issues

[7] The issues for consideration by this Court were as follows:

(a) Spousal Maintenance — In the deliberation of whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to the Respondent, the following issues were imperative to consider, namely,

(i) Whether the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was caused by the Petitioner or Respondent; and

(ii) Whether the Respondent had satisfied the 'means and needs' assessment to justify her claim for monthly maintenance.

(b) The Child — The key issues concerning the Child were:

(i) Whether the Petitioner was obligated to pay child maintenance; and

(ii) Whether the Parties should have joint guardianship and custody or if sole guardianship and custody should be granted to the Respondent.

(c) Matrimonial Assets — The key issue regarding the matrimonial assets was whether this Court had jurisdiction over their division in France and, if so, whether the Petitioner had provided sufficient evidence to justify such a division.

[8] The Divorce Petition and Cross-Petition were granted in part, allowing the divorce, joint guardianship and joint custody of the Child, and spousal and child maintenance. While the Petitioner was not required to pay spousal maintenance, he was obligated to provide monthly child maintenance of MYR1,500.00 and to equally share all additional expenses related to the Child.

[9] However, no division of matrimonial assets was ordered, as the Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence or to provide sufficient details of such matrimonial assets for the Court to decide on the matter.

[10] The following were my reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

Spousal Maintenance

[11] In determining if spousal maintenance should be granted to the Respondent, reference was made to s 77(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act "), which reads:

Section 77 - Power of to order maintenance of spouse

(1) The Court may order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife:

(a) during the course of any matrimonial proceedings;

(b) when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of divorce or judicial separation;

(c) if, after a decree declaring her presumed to be dead, she is found to be alive.

[Emphasis Added]

[12] In my assessment of whether the Respondent was deserving of maintenan