A marriage is void ab initio if contracted while one party is still legally married, emphasizing the criminality of bigamy and the necessity for legal accountability.

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was a petition filed by the Petitioner to annul his marriage to the Respondent pursuant to s 69 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act"), on the ground that the Petitioner was still married to his first wife, when he registered his marriage to the Respondent.

[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 WEI and MEI, respectively.

The Factual Background

[3] In 1978, the Petitioner legally registered his marriage at the Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Kedah, to an individual named FEI, a Taiwanese citizen. However, without obtaining a formal legal divorce from FEI, the Petitioner, in May 1992, registered a second marriage with the Respondent ("the Second Marriage"), also a Taiwanese citizen, at the High Commission of Malaysia at Hong Kong.

[4] It was only in 2012, two decades after the Second Marriage, that the Petitioner had finally divorced FEI.

[5] In August 2024, the Petitioner, now aged 71, initiated legal proceedings by filing a petition to annul the Second Marriage ("the Annulment Petition"). He based his claim on s 69(a) of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act, which provides grounds for nullity of marriage in cases where one of the parties was lawfully married to another person at the time of the Second Marriage. The provision reads:

Section 69 - Grounds on which a marriage is void

A marriage which takes place after the appointed date shall be void if:

(a) at the time of the marriage either party was already lawfully married and the former husband or wife of such party was living at the time of the marriage and such former marriage was then in force;

(b) a male person marries under eighteen years of age or a female person who is above sixteen years but under eighteen years marries without a special licence granted by the Chief Minister under s 10;

(c) the parties are within the prohibited degrees of relationship unless the Chief Minister grants a special licence under s 11 (6); or

(d) the parties are not respectively male and female.

[Emphasis Added]

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

[6] The only issue was whether the Annulment Petition should be allowed.

[7] In my view, the Annulment Petition had to be allowed without question, as the Second Marriage was void ab initio. This meant the marriage was invalid from the very beginning because it was contracted while the Petitioner was still in a legally recognised marriage to FEI. Therefore, the Second Marriage was not a marriage to begin with, and held no legal standing from the outset, making the ground for this Petition indisputable.

[8] Although the Second Marriage was void ab initio, that is, legally invalid from the start, the Court was still required to formally declare the Second Marriage null and void by pronouncing a decree of nullity. This procedural step was mandated under s 73 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act which reads:

Section 73 - Effect of decree of nullity in case of voidable marriage

(1) If the Court finds that the petitioner's case has been proved it shall pronounce a decree of nullity.

(2) A decree of nullity granted after the appointed date on the ground that marriage is voidable shall operate to annul the marriage only as respects any time after the coming into operation of the decree, and the marriage shall, notwithstanding the decree, be treated as if it had existed up to that time.

[Emphasis Added]

[9] Despite the inherent invalidity of the Second Marriage, the legal system necessitated such a declaration to ensure that the void status is officially recognised and documented, providing clarity and finality to the matter.

[10] However, this Petition did not exempt the Petitioner from accountability for his actions. By registering the Second Marriage, while still legally married to FEI, the Petitioner had not only disre