Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3439
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
HAI – Appellant
Versus
PAI & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Separation Petition No: WA-33-574-10/2022]
Adultery is a recognized fault ground for judicial separation, requiring proof on a balance of probabilities; spousal maintenance and matrimonial asset division must consider both financial and non-financial contributions.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Sections 53, 54, 58, 76, 77, and 78 - Judicial separation sought by wife due to husband's adultery - Petitioner claimed spousal maintenance, division of matrimonial assets, and damages from co-respondent - Court found adultery proven, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Spousal maintenance awarded as lump-sum of MYR205,000.00, half the value of matrimonial assets granted, and damages of MYR200,000.00 from co-respondent - Costs of MYR50,000.00 ordered against both husband and co-respondent. (Paras 11, 12, 120, 119, 189, 193)
(B) Adultery as ground for divorce - Court emphasized the necessity of proving adultery for judicial separation, with the burden on the petitioner to establish claims on a balance of probabilities - The court highlighted the importance of considering both financial and non-financial contributions in asset division, reflecting the evolving nature of marital roles. (Paras 19, 171, 177)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a full-time housewife, sought judicial separation from her husband after he confessed to an adulterous relationship with a co-respondent. The marriage lasted nearly five decades and produced six children. The petitioner claimed spousal maintenance, equitable division of matrimonial assets, and damages from the co-respondent for her role in the marital breakdown. (Paras 1-9)
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence of adultery, leading to the conclusion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The court awarded spousal maintenance, division of matrimonial assets, and damages, emphasizing the need for fair compensation reflecting both parties' contributions. (Paras 11-12, 119-120)
Issues: The primary issues were whether adultery was proven, the entitlement to spousal maintenance, the division of matrimonial assets, and the awarding of damages from the co-respondent. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner met the burden of proof for adultery on a balance of probabilities and that both financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage must be recognized in asset division. The court also emphasized the need for fairness in awarding damages. (Paras 19, 171, 177)
Result: Judicial separation granted; Respondent ordered to pay MYR205,000.00 in spousal maintenance and MYR50,000.00 in costs; Co-Respondent ordered to pay MYR200,000.00 in damages and MYR50,000.00 in costs; matrimonial assets to be divided equally. (Paras 193)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This was a petition sought by the Petitioner-Wife, seeking a judicial separation from the Respondent-Husband, as well as spousal maintenance, division of matrimonial assets, and damages from the Co-Respondent for the alleged adultery between the Co-Respondent and the Respondent-Husband.
[2] Given the privacy of parties and sensitivity of issues in these proceedings, the Petitioner, Respondent and Co-Respondent have been anonymised in these grounds of judgment respectively as HAI, PAI and KAI.
The Factual Background
[3] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively "the Parties") were aged 72 and 74, respectively, at the time of the commencement of the trial of the petition for judicial separation. They entered into matrimony in October 1977, marking the beginning of a union that would last almost five decades. Their marriage was blessed with six children ("the Children"), whose ages ranged from 36 to 46 at the time of the trial of the petition for judicial separation, as well as three grandchildren.
[4] The Petitioner, despite earning a Diploma in Business Studies from Singapore's Ngee Ann College, chose to forgo her professional ambitions to become a full-time housewife, devoting herself almost entirely to raising the Children and managing the household.
[5] The Respondent, on the other hand, was a civil engineer with an academic background from the University of Malaya. Over the years, he achieved professional success, founding several businesses that underscored his entrepreneurial acumen. Between 1991 and 1998, he worked overseas in Brunei, further advancing his career. During this period, the Petitioner remained in Malaysia, shouldering the sole responsibility of caring for the Children and managing the household affairs.
[6] The marriage, which endured almost five decades, was marked by a long period of relative harmony and stability. However, this equilibrium was disrupted in September 2022, when the Petitioner claimed that the Respondent confessed to an adulterous relationship with the Co-Respondent, who was 38 years old at the time of the trial of the petition for judicial separation. This revelation proved to be a pivotal moment in their relationship, ultimately leading the Petitioner to seek judicial separation.
[7] On 14 October 2022, the Petitioner filed a petition for judicial separation ('the Judicial Separation petition"), where she had sought multiple remedies to address the emotional and financial implications of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
[8] Specifically, the Petitioner claimed spousal maintenance; and division of matrimonial assets, requesting half the value of all properties, savings, and other shared assets accrued during their marriage.
[9] The Petitioner also pursued damages from the Co-Respondent, holding her accountable for her alleged role in the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The Issues
[10] The issues that had to be addressed by this Court were as follows:
(a) Spousal Maintenance - In considering whether a lump-sum spousal maintenance of MYR1.92 million should be awarded to the Petitioner by the Respondent, the Court examined several factors related to the breakdown of the marriage. These included:
(i) Whether the Petitioner had proved adultery between the Respondent and Co-Respondent, and that such adultery had caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent;
(ii) Whether the Petitioner was entitled to claim damages in the amount of MYR200,000.00 from the Co-Respondent upon establishing the adultery;
(iii) Whether spousal maintenance may be ordered in lump-sum; and
(iv) Whether the Petitioner had satisfied the "means and needs" assessment to justify her claim for spousal maintenance.
(b) The matrimonial assets - With regard to the matrimonial assets, the primary issue was whether the Petitioner was entitled to half the value of all the matrimonial assets. In addressing the division of matrimonial
