The court ruled that a spouse cannot claim divorce on grounds of adultery if they have tolerated the situation for an extended period, emphasizing the importance of timely action in divorce proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was the Petitioner-Husband's petition for divorce, on ground of his conversion to Islam; while the Respondent-Wife countered with a cross-petition alleging adultery. Additionally, she sought arrears in spousal maintenance, and an equitable division of all matrimonial assets.

[2] Given the privacy of parties and sensitivity of issues in these proceedings, the Petitioner, and Respondent have been anonymised respectively as HAL and HAS.

The Factual Background

[3] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively "the Parties"), both 74 years old at the time of the trial, were married in January 1974. Over their decades together, they raised a family comprising four children ("the Children"), namely, two sons and two daughters.

[4] During their marriage, the Respondent dedicated her life to homemaking and raising the Children, while the Petitioner pursued a career as a contractor specialising in house renovations through his company, Syarikat Pembinaan dan Perniagaan Ngai Shoot Sdn Bhd ("Ngai Shoot").

[5] In July 2000, the Petitioner converted to Islam. Subsequently, in August 2020, he married an Indonesian Muslim woman, referred to in these grounds of judgment as TEB. The Petitioner and TEB welcomed a daughter in February 2001.

[6] In May 2021, the Petitioner initiated divorce proceedings ("the Divorce Petition"). The Respondent responded and cross-petitioned in August 2021 ("the Cross-Petition").

[7] Initially, the Respondent had included TEB as a co-respondent in the Cross-Petition. However, following the decision of the Federal Court in AJS v. JMH & Another Appeal, 2021 MarsdenLR 590 , which decided that Muslims cannot be made parties in legal disputes concerning the marital issues of non-Muslims, the Respondent withdrew her claim against TEB.

The Issues

[8] The issues that had to be addressed by this Court were as follows:

(a) Spousal Maintenance - In the deliberation of whether spousal maintenance should be awarded, it was imperative to consider the following issues:

(i) Whether the breakdown of the marriage was due to the Petitioner's conversion to Islam or whether it was due to the Petitioner's adulterous relationship with TEB, and if it was due to such adultery, whether the Respondent had found such adultery intolerable;

(ii) Whether the Respondent had fulfilled the 'means and needs' test to justify her claim for arrears in maintenance;

(b) Matrimonial Assets - With regard to the matrimonial assets ("the Matrimonial Assets"), the issue was whether the Respondent was entitled to equal division of all the Matrimonial Assets, which included the matrimonial home ("the Matrimonial Home"); other immoveable properties; shares in Ngai Shoot, vehicles, and watches and jewellery.

[9] The divorce was granted and the decree nisi was made absolute immediately. The Matrimonial Assets were divided accordingly between the Petitioner and Respondent, and the Petitioner was ordered to pay spousal maintenance to the Respondent in the form of transferring to the Respondent his half share in a property that he coowned with the Parties' daughter. The following are my reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

Maintenance

[10] In navigating the complexities surrounding the maintenance matter, focus was placed on s 77(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act"). The provision reads:

Section 77 - Power of to order maintenance of spouse

(1) The Court may order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife:

(a) during the course of any matrimonial proceedings;

(b) when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of divorce or judicial separation;

(c) if, after a decree declaring her presumed to be dead, she is found to be alive.

[Emphasis Added]

[11] Despite the discretionary power held by the Court in handling maintenance claims by a wife, the Court was guided by the degree of responsibility assigned to each party for the breakdown of the marriage, and the