Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3501
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CHAN – Appellant
Versus
SHAN & ORS; ALIR (INTERVENER) – Respondent
[Divorce Petition No: WA-33-546-09/2018]
The court found that allegations of adultery must be proven by a balance of probabilities, and both parties contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, affecting spousal maintenance and asset division.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Sections 53, 54, 77, 78, and 80 - Divorce petition filed by the Petitioner-Wife for divorce, spousal maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets, with Respondent-Husband cross-petitioning for divorce - Allegations of adultery against Respondent by Petitioner - Court ruled that Petitioner failed to prove adultery on a balance of probabilities (Paras 24, 259) - Court found that both Parties contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage (Paras 302, 310) - Spousal maintenance awarded at MYR6,720,000.00 in lump sum, with additional amounts for household chattels and EPF share (Paras 28, 543).
(B) Adultery - Definition and proof - Court held that proof of adultery requires evidence of a sexual relationship, not mere suspicion or emotional infidelity (Paras 82, 143).
(C) Maintenance - Court applied 'means and needs' test, determining that Petitioner was entitled to maintenance based on her contributions and financial needs (Paras 77, 318).
(D) Matrimonial assets - Court ruled on division of matrimonial assets, including shares, properties, and personal belongings, emphasizing the importance of contributions to the marriage (Paras 76, 401). (E) Costs - Court found that both Parties exhibited unreasonable conduct, leading to equal sharing of costs (Paras 522, 526).
The grounds of appeal in this case could include the following points:
-
Erroneous Evaluation of Evidence: The appellant may argue that the trial court improperly assessed the credibility and probative value of the evidence, particularly regarding the allegations of adultery and abuse. They might contend that certain evidence, such as covert recordings or digital communications, should have been admitted or excluded differently, and that the court failed to give appropriate weight to credible evidence presented.
-
Misapplication of Legal Standards for Proof: The appellant could assert that the court applied an incorrect standard of proof for establishing adultery or misconduct, potentially requiring a higher degree of certainty than appropriate, or misinterpreted what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove such allegations.
-
Incorrect Classification of Assets: The appellant might argue that the court erred in its classification of certain properties and assets as non-matrimonial or pre-marriage assets, thereby unjustly excluding assets from the division process. They could claim that the assets in question were acquired or used during the marriage and should have been included as matrimonial assets.
-
Inadequate Consideration of Contributions: The appellant may contend that the court failed to adequately recognize or quantify their contributions, including non-monetary contributions such as social standing, influence, or support that facilitated the development of the family or the respondent’s business.
-
Unreasonable or Unfounded Findings on Fault: The appellant might argue that the court’s findings regarding mutual fault, misconduct, or the breakdown of the marriage were not supported by the evidence, or that the court improperly attributed fault to one party without sufficient basis.
-
Improper Award of Maintenance and Asset Division: The appellant could claim that the court’s decision to award a lump sum instead of ongoing maintenance, or the specific division of assets, was unjust, disproportionate, or not reflective of the contributions and circumstances of the parties.
-
Procedural Irregularities: The appellant might allege that there were procedural errors during the trial, such as improper admission or exclusion of evidence, or bias in the court’s proceedings, which affected the fairness of the judgment.
-
Inadequate Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality: The appellant could argue that the court’s order for anonymization or confidentiality was insufficient or improperly granted, potentially exposing them to undue harm or prejudice.
These grounds aim to challenge the legal reasoning, factual findings, or procedural aspects of the trial court’s decision, seeking a review or reversal of the judgment.
Introduction
[1] This was the Petitioner-Wife's divorce petition, seeking a divorce, spousal maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets, whilst the Respondent-Husband cross-petitioned for a divorce. The Petitioner also sought damages from the First and Second Co-Respondents for alleged adultery with the Respondent which the Petitioner claimed had caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
[2] To protect the privacy of all parties involved in these proceedings and in consideration of the sensitivity of the issues at hand, the Petitioner and Respondent have been anonymised as "CHAN" and "SHAN," respectively. Similarly, the First and Second Co-Respondents have been anonymised as "RHAN" and "KHAN," respectively. The Intervener will be referred to as "ALIR" throughout this judgment.
The Factual Background
[3] This narrative follows a marriage that started off glamorous and exciting, filled with luxury and adventure. To everyone else, the couple seemed successful and happy, their relationship strengthened by wealth and shared experiences. But behind the scenes, cracks began to show as time passed. What once seemed like a perfect love story slowly started falling apart, revealing deeper issues. Arguments grew, with accusations of cheating, jealousy, and mistrust. The pressure from society and constant scrutiny only made things worse, eventually leading to the marriage's messy breakdown.
[4] The parties involved in this legal dispute are the Petitioner, an Indian citizen and permanent resident of Malaysia, and the Respondent, a Malaysian citizen known for his entrepreneurial ventures (collectively "the Parties"). The Respondent is the executive director of a company referred to in this judgment as "ALIR".
[5] ALIR started in the textile trade but grew into a leading luxury retail specialist in Southeast Asia, currently operating over 400 stores across several countries and representing more than 200 brands.
[6] The First Co-Respondent, was not just an acquaintance of the Respondent but was deeply embedded in his personal and social circles. She was a long-time family friend and held a close connection to the Respondent's inner circle. The First Co-Respondent is also the wife of the Respondent's closest friend, identified in Court as CRW1. Their association was further reinforced by their shared closely-knit community ties, which meant that their families and social networks were well-acquainted. At one point during legal proceedings, the Respondent had informed the Court that the First Co-Respondent was in fact related to him, suggesting a familial link beyond mere friendship.
[7] In addition to her personal ties to the Respondent, the First Co-Respondent was an established businesswoman operating in the jewellery and watch industry. She was recognised for her independent entrepreneurial ventures, having expanded her business dealings. The evidence before this Court indicated that the First Co-Respondent was not only socially influential but also a successful professional in her own right, managing and growing a business in a highly competitive luxury retail market.
[8] The Second Co-Respondent was employed at ALIR and collaborated closely with the Respondent in her professional capacity. However, her employment at ALIR ended when she departed from the company in 2016.
[9] At the time of the trial of the divorce petition and cross-petition, the Petitioner and Respondent were 50 and 52 years old, respectively. Their union began in July 1999, and for the first decade of their marriage, they resided in the Respondent's parents' home. During this period, they welcomed two children — a son ("the Son"), born in 2002, and a daughter ("the Daughter") in 2004.
[10] In 2009, the Parties embarked on a new chapter of their lives by moving into a condominium, referred to in this judgment as the "PGA Penthouse." Although the PGA Penthouse was owned by the Respondent's brother, it functioned as the Parties' matrimo
