SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 MarsdenLR 2510

HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
YEE YEW CHUIN – Appellant
Versus
LEE BEE PENG (ENCL 17) – Respondent
[Divorce Petition No: PA-33-341-09/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Poon Lee Fah ,Respondent Advocate: Lee Kheng Hong

The court established that in divorce proceedings, discovery of financial documents is essential for determining maintenance claims, emphasizing the relevance and necessity of the documents requested.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 Rule 10 - Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 - Rules 56, 61, and 65 - Application for production of documents in maintenance claim - Respondent Wife seeks financial documents from Petitioner Husband to support maintenance claim - Court allowed specific documents relevant to the financial status of the Petitioner Husband from January 1, 2020, to the present date, while denying others deemed irrelevant. (Paras 1-67)

(B) Discovery - The court emphasized that discovery applications must relate to documents relevant to the case and not be a fishing expedition - Documents must be in possession of the respondent and relevant to the issues in dispute. (Paras 30-46)

(C) Maintenance - Court found that the requested documents were necessary to determine the financial capacity of the Petitioner Husband for the maintenance claim, supporting the principle that financial disclosures are vital in matrimonial disputes. (Paras 24-28)

Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the application for specific financial documents to assess the Petitioner Husband's financial capability for maintenance, while denying requests for documents unrelated to the maintenance claim.

Issues: The main issues were the appropriateness of the application for document production and whether the documents requested were relevant to the maintenance claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the application was valid as it aimed to assist in determining maintenance, and the documents sought were necessary for a fair assessment of the financial matters at hand.

Result: Application allowed in part; costs borne by Petitioner Husband.

Table of Content
1. application for document production in divorce case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. background facts of marriage and separation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. preliminary objections raised by the petitioner husband. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. arguments by respondent wife on necessity of documents. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. court’s analysis on the relevance of documents. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. conclusion on allowed documents and court's reasoning. (Para 41 , 42 , 63 , 64 , 65)
7. final order and decision of the court. (Para 67)
Azizan Md Arshad JC:

[Lampiran 17]

Introduction

[1] This is an application ('Enclosure 17") by the Respondent Wife ("RW") for an order that documents be produced by the Petitioner Husband ("PH"). This application is made to support relief related to the wife's maintenance claim in the answer to the PH's Divorce Petition against the RW.

[2] This application is made under O 24 r 10 of the Rules of Court 2012 (" ROC 2012"). This Court on 27 September 2023 has allowed some of the documents obtained and now states the reasons for doing so. The parties are referred to as the were in the High Court.

Cause Papers

[3] The documents submitted by the parties to this application are as follows:

(a) Afidavit Sokongan Responden Isteri dated 11 July 2023 ("Afidavit Sokongan Responden Isteri");

(b) Afidavit Balasan Pempetisyen Suami dated 2 August 2023 ("Afidavit Balasan Pempetisyen Suami"); and

(c) Afidavit Balasan Responden dated 17 August 2023 ("Afidavit Balasan Responden Isteri")

[4] According to encl 17, which was filed on 28 June 2023, the following documents are required:

(i) Slip Gaji dan Penyata Taksiran Cukai Pempetisyen Suami untuk 10 tahun lalu sehingga tarikh semasa;

(ii) Kesemua penyata-penyata akaun kad kredit Pempetisyen Suami untuk 10 tahun lalu sehingga tarikh semasa;

(iii) Kesemua penyata akaun Pempetisyen Suami dari pelbagai bank-banknya di dalam atau di luar bidangkuasa Mahkamah untuk 10 tahun lalu sehingga tarikh semasa;

(iv) Kesemua salinan-salinan dan / atau butir-butir mengenai akaun-akaun simpanan tetap atau unit trust atau perlaburan Pempetisyen Suami dalam dan juga luar negeri untuk 10 tahun lalu sehingga tarikh semasa;

(v) Salinan-salinan penyata-penyata KWSP Pempetisyen Suami untuk 10 tahun yang lalu sehingga tarikh semasa;

(vi) Butir-butir dan dokumen-dokumen mengenai rumah kedai di No. 21, Lorong Berjaya, Pulau Tikus, 10350 Pulau Pinang;

(vii) 5tir dan dokumen-dokumen mengenai rumah di 104-1-3A, Villa Emas Condo, Persiaran Bayan Indah, 11900, Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang.

[5] The grounds of the application states that, in answering to the Divorce Petition, the RW claims among others, a maintenance amounting to RM20,000.00 per month and money arrears of RM20,000.00 per month since 1 January 2020 until the date of the marriage decree nisi. The RW is also claiming for the property owned and acquired during their marriage. The RW has filed this notice to produce and has been handed over to PH, but the PH failed to comply with the notice.

Background Facts

[6] The PH and the RW were married on 30 October 1997 and gave birth to 2 children from the marriage. The children of the marriage have grown up, namely 24 years and 22 years old.

[7] The PH and the RW have lived at address No 20, Jalan Kacang Piring, 11200, Tanjung Bungah, Penang ("last matrimonial home").

[8] On January 1, 2020, PH left the last matrimonial home and moved to address No 21, Lorong Berjaya, 10350, Pulau Pinang (the office address of the Plaintiffs husband named Cipta Teguh Architect Sdn Bhd). The RW still lives in the last matrimonial home.

[9] On 28 September 2022, the PH filed a Divorce Petition against the RW. The RW submitted a notice for a list of relevant documents but was ignored by the PH, therefore encl 17 is filed by the RW.

PH's Submissions

(i) Preliminary Objection

[10] The PH submits that the RW's application herein is made by way of a wrong mode and constitutes an abuse of Court process. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top