All properties acquired during marriage are deemed matrimonial assets, and contributions from both parties must be considered for equitable division, regardless of ownership registration.

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was a divorce petition filed by the Petitioner husband who had sought, among other things, the dissolution of the marriage and an equal division of four properties purchased during the marriage. In response, the Respondent wife filed a cross-petition. Although she had not contested the divorce itself, she claimed for three of the properties to be declared hers solely, sought the recovery of rentals, and claimed compensation for the alleged theft of furniture by the Petitioner.

The Factual Background

[2] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively, "the Parties"), aged 62 and 58 respectively at the time of the hearing, registered their marriage in December 1992. There are two children of the marriage, aged 28 and 25 years ("the Children") at the time of the hearing.

[3] The marriage deteriorated over time and in April 2021, the Petitioner filed a divorce petition ("the Divorce Petition") and the Respondent responded and cross-petitioned in May 2021 ("the Cross-Petition").

The Issues

[4] The primary contention revolved around the division of four properties, as asserted by the Petitioner, contrary to the Respondent's stance, who sought a declaration deeming three of such properties as non-matrimonial assets.

[5] The subsequent issues arose regarding the Respondent's claims were as follows: firstly, the entitlement to rental income purportedly collected by the Petitioner with regard to one of the properties; secondly, the legitimacy of the Respondent's claim for rent from the Petitioner due to his occupancy in one of the properties; and finally, the validity of the Respondent's assertion to claim compensation for furniture allegedly pilfered by the Petitioner.

[6] The Divorce Petition was allowed, whilst the Cross-Petition was dismissed for the following reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

Whether Properties Were Matrimonial Assets And Should Be Divided Equally

[7] The properties in question were as follows:

a) A property at Taman Esplanade Bukit Jalil ("Property No 11");

b) A property at Taman Esplanade, Bukit Jalil ("Property No 91");

c) A three-story shop lot at One Puchong Business Park, Off Jalan Puchong, ("the Puchong Property");

d) A condominium at the Sky Park Residence ("the Sky Park Property");

(collectively "the four Properties").

[8] At the time of the hearing of the Divorce Petition and Cross-Petition, the Petitioner was residing at Property No 11, whilst the Respondent occupied the Sky Park Property.

[9] The task of dividing matrimonial assets is prescribed by s 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act"), which reads:

Section 76 - Power of to order division of matrimonial assets

(1) The court shall have power, when granting a decree of divorce or judicial separation, to order the division between the parties of any assets acquired by them during the marriage or the sale of any such assets and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale.

(2) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) the court shall have regard to:

(a) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring of the assets or payment of expenses for the benefit of the family;

(aa) the extent of the contributions made by the other party who did not acquire the assets to the welfare of the family by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(b) any debts owing by either party which were contracted for their joint benefit;

(c) the needs of the minor children, if any, of the marriage;

(d) the duration of the marriage,

and subject to those considerations, the court shall incline towards equality of division.

...

(5) For the purposes of this section, references to assets acquired during a marriage include assets owned before the marriage by one party which have been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by their joint efforts.

[Emphasis Added]

[10] Property No 11 was regis