Back
2023 MarsdenLR 153
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ANNATHURAI VENKIDASALAM – Appellant
Versus
VANI WELLUVEN – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: A-02(W)-1555-08/2022]
The court emphasized equitable distribution of matrimonial assets and the duty of parents to maintain children, allowing adjustments based on individual circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Sections 76, 92, 93, and 95 - Appeal against distribution of matrimonial property and children maintenance - The appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the High Court's order for RM37,500 for the 2nd child's education, while maintaining the rest. (Paras 2, 12, 30)
(B) Division of matrimonial property - The court emphasized fair and equitable distribution based on contributions and needs, noting the importance of recognizing non-monetary contributions by homemakers. (Paras 16, 18, 20)
(C) Children maintenance - The court upheld the duty of a parent to maintain children, adjusting specific amounts for educational expenses based on current circumstances. (Paras 30, 33)
Facts of the case:
The parties were married in 1992 with three children. The husband had extra-marital affairs leading to a breakdown of the marriage, resulting in the wife leaving with the children. The High Court ordered the division of assets and maintenance payments. (Paras 4-8)
Findings of Court:
The court found no error in the High Court's decision regarding property division and maintenance, except for the specific amount for the 2nd child's education, which was deemed excessive. (Paras 26, 34)
Issues: The primary issues included the division of the matrimonial property, the share of the husband’s EPF, and the appropriateness of the maintenance amounts ordered for the children. (Paras 12, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the division of matrimonial assets should consider both monetary and non-monetary contributions, and that maintenance should reflect the reasonable needs of children, allowing for adjustments based on circumstances. (Paras 18, 30)
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against matrimonial property distribution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the marriage and divorce. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. high court's decision on divorce and property. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. issues narrowed for appeal. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal provisions on division of matrimonial assets. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's discretion in asset division. (Para 19) |
| 7. court's reasoning on asset division. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. appellant's concession on epf share. (Para 29) |
| 9. dispute over children's maintenance and education expenses. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. conclusion of appeal decision. (Para 34) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the distribution of matrimonial property as well as children maintenance consequential to divorce.
[2] The appeal came before us on 21 August 2023 and we unanimously allowed the appeal in part by only setting aside the High Court's order relating to the lump sum payment of RM37,500.00 for the 2nd child's maintenance for her tertiary education. The rest of the High Court order is maintained. No order as to costs.
[3] We now provide below the grounds of our decision.
Background
[4] The parties were married in 1992. The Appellant husband is presently 51 years old and the Respondent wife is 46 years old.
[5] They have 3 children viz, 1st daughter (now 25 years), 2nd daughter (now 21 years) and 3rd daughter (19 years in October 2023) (collectively "Children").
[6] The Appellant runs a scrap metal business whilst the Respondent was a full-time housewife. They used to live together in the matrimonial home ("House") purchased by the Appellant after the marriage and registered in his sole name.
[7] The parties were not compatible and the marriage got into serious problems because of the Appellant's extra-marital affairs as well as harassment and abuse of the Respondent.
[8] As the result, the Respondent in 2009 left the House and lived separately with the 3 children. She worked as a cashier in the supermarket without maintenance of her and the Children by the Appellant. In times of financial hardship, the Respondent's brothers-in-law helped her out in the maintenance.
[9] By reason that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Appellant commenced divorce proceedings in the High Court in July 2021.
In The High Court
[10] After trial that was not contested on the divorce (because the parties have no wish to stay married to each other) but only contested on the distribution of matrimonial property and children maintenance, the learned High Court Judicial Commissioner on 2 August 2022 ordered as follows ("Decision"):
...MAKA ADALAH DIPUTUSKAN DAN DIPERINTAHKAN seperti berikut:
(a) Bahawa perkahwinan antara Pempetisyen Suami dan Responden Isteri dibubarkan;
(b) Bahawa dekri pembubaran perkahwinan dijadikan mutlak dengan serta-merta;
(c) Bahawa Pempetisyen Suami dikehendaki melantik penilai yang dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua pihak untuk membuat penilaian rumah yang beralamat No 5, Lorong Mewah 11, Taman Mewah, Kamunting, 34600 Perak yang didirikan atas Lot 17034, Mukim Asam Kumbang, Daerah Larut & Matang, Negeri Perak dan dipegang di bawah Pajakan Negeri No Hakmilik 210291 (seterusnya dirujuk sebagai "rumah perkahwinan") untuk memperolehi harga pasaran rumah perkahwinan dalam tempoh 2 bulan dari tarikh ini;
(d) Bahawa Pempetisyen Suami dikehendaki menjual rumah perkahwinan pada harga yang tidak kurang dari nilai pasaran dalam tempoh 4 bulan dari tarikh laporan penilaian rumah perkahwinan diterima kecuali sekiranya lanjutan masa dipersetujui oleh kedua- dua pihak;
(e) Bahawa Pempetisyen Suami dikehendaki membayar Responden Isteri 1/2 bahagian harga jualan rumah perkahwinan dalam tempoh 3 minggu dari tarikh harga jualan rumah perkahwinan diterima olehnya;
(f) Bahawa Responden Isteri dikehendaki menarikbalik Kaveat Persendiriannya atas rumah perkahwinan supaya tiada halangan untuk penjualan rumah perkahwinan;
(g) Bahawa 1/2 bahagian jumlah wang
