Back
2019 MarsdenLR 1653
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
POONAGESWARI P KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
BAILAND GOVINDANAM – Respondent
[Divorce Petition No: WA-33-302-05/2016]
The Court affirms that claims for spousal maintenance and asset division must be supported by sufficient proof of need and means as per the governing statute.
Headnote:The Court determined the matter under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, specifically sections related to maintenance and division of matrimonial assets. The marriage of over three decades was characterized by mutual allegations of abuse and financial neglect, leading to a dissolution by the Court. The primary issues revolved around the spousal maintenance, lump sum payment for contributions, and claims on the property. The Court concluded the marriage had irretrievably broken down with only the dissolution prayer granted, dismissing all others due to insufficient proof of claims.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage dissolution is confirmed by mutual agreement after identifying irretrievable breakdown. (Para 1) |
| 2. failed marriage marked by abuse and financial neglect. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner's financial claims need substantial proof to warrant court approval. (Para 4) |
[1] This is yet another tragic case of a failed marriage after more than three decades of the sacred union tainted with allegations of mental and physical abuse by the husband towards the wife, and a family torn apart as a consequence with the adult children ultimately rallying in support of the mother and totally abandoning the father.
[2] The Petitioner and Respondent married on 5 September 1981 at the Vinayagar Temple in Tampin, Negeri Sembilan. The couple is blessed with four children who are now all above 21 years of age. The family had stayed at various addresses with the final residence being at No 16, Jalan Sentul Bahagia, Persiaran Sentul Bahagia, 51100 Kuala Lumpur ('Sentul property').
[3] The Petitioner moved out of the Sentul property in May 2014 and stayed at No 6A, Lorong Sentul Bahagia 1, Sentul Bahagia, 51100 Kuala Lumpur. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Respondent were called to attend before the Conciliatory Council/ Marriage Tribunal where, on 28 May 2015, the said Council/ Tribunal issued a certificate pursuant to s 106 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] ('LRA 1976') stating that the couple refuse to reconcile. At the first date of trial in July 2018, the Petitioner was almost 59 years old while the Respondent was nearing 66 years old.
[4] The Petitioner filed a Petition on 12 May 2016 seeking orders of the Court that:
(a) the marriage be dissolved;
(b) the Respondent pays maintenance of RM2,000.00 per month to the Petitioner to be credited directly into the latter's account on or before the 7th date of each month;
(c) the Respondent pays a lump sum payment of RM1 million to the Petitioner for her contribution towards the marriage to ensure her future;
(d) the Respondent pays arrears in maintenance to the Petitioner of RM2,000.00 a month for 22 months from May 2014 until March 2016 amounting to RM44,000.00;
(e) the Respondent transfers his full share of ownership to the Sentul property held under Lot No PT 6699, Seksyen SPK 16, Sentul, Kuala Lumpur to the Petitioner within 3 months from the date of the Order of the Court;
(f) the Respondent is restrained from disturbing, humiliating or injuring the Petitioner at any time, including defaming her among the relatives; and
