Mohd Hishamudin bin Mohd Yunus JC:

In this application, the applicant/petitioner applied to this Court for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, his servants, or agents from disposing of his Employees Provident Fund and gratuity payments until final disposal of her application for ancillary relief under the divorce petition. This application was pursuant to s. 102 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 which reads:

Power of Court to set aside and prevent dispositions intended to defeat claims to maintenance.

102. (1) Where -

(a) any matrimonial proceeding is pending, ...

...

the Court shall have power on application -

(i) if it is satisfied that any disposition of properly has been made by the spouse or former spouse or parent of the person by or on whose behalf the application is made, within the preceding three years, with the object on the part of the person making the disposition of reducing his or her means to pay maintenance or of depriving his or her spouse of any rights in relation to that property, to set aside the disposition; and

(ii) if it is satisfied that any disposition of property is intended to be made with any such object,

to grant an injunction preventing that disposition.

(2) For the purposes of this section -

"disposition" includes a sale, gift, lease, mortgage or any other transaction whereby ownership or possession of the property is transferred or encumbered but does not include a disposition made for money or money's worth to or in favour of a person acting in good faith and in ignorance of the object with which the disposition is made:

"property" means property of any nature, movable or immovable, and includes money.

The applicant and respondent were married in 1970. In 1988 they executed a deed of separation and separated. They had three children and only one was still a minor. The respondent worked in a bank as a bank officer and retired in April 1993 at the age of 55. The applicant had filed a divorce petition in October 1992 but no date had been fixed for the hearing of the petition. In her petition, the applicant had asked for ancillary relief. The applicant, in her affidavit, stated that she believed that unless the respondent was restrained from disposing of his EPF and gratuity payments, the latter was likely to deprive her of her rights in relation to a portion of those sums of money.

Encik Balwant Singh Sidhu, learned Counsel for the applicant, in his submission, brought to my attention s. 76 (3) of the Act which reads:

76. Power of Court to order division of matrimonial assets.

(1) ...

(2) ...

(3) 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 during the marriage by the sole effort of one party to the marriage or the sale of any such assets and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale.

He submitted that if the respondent were allowed to dispose of the gratuity and EPF payments at this stage, it might defeat his client's claim for future maintenance and for a share of the matrimonial assets.

The nature of EPF contributions is explained in the case which I shall refer to in due course. Gratuities are lump sum payments made by employers to their employees upon retirement. The amount depends on the salary and the length of service of the employee. The higher the salary and the longer the length of service, the more is the amount of gratuity paid. Gratuities, as the term implies, are money paid as a token of gratitude to the employee for the services rendered to the employer. To most retired employees, gratuity payment means much to them and to their families.

It is my view that both the EPF and gratuity payments are matrimonial assets, that is to say, assets acquired during the marriage by the sole effort of one party to the marriage. As for EPF payment, I am fortified in my view by the decision of Chan Sek Keong J. in