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

1996 MarsdenLR 1786

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)

ABDUL WAHAB PATAIL, JC


KHOO CHENG NEE
versus
LUBIN CHIEW PAU SING

DIVORCE PETITION NO 33-244-93

Decided On : 01-05-96

Advocates:
M Manoharan (Karpal Singh & Co) for the petitioner.
A Kanesalingham (Kanesalingam & Co) for the respondent.

JUGMENT

This petition filed on 2 September 1993 is for the following orders:

(1) that the petitioner's marriage to the respondent of 6 January 1985 be dissolved;

(2) that custody, care and control of the children of the marriage, Joshua Ezekiel Lubin born 23 July 1985, and Caleb Mikhail Lubin born 17 May 1988, be given to the petitioner;

(3) that the respondent pays maintenance in the sum of RM1,000 per child, and that no maintenance be provided for the petitioner;

(4) that the respondent be given reasonable access to the children in the presence of the petitioner or her family member; and

(5) such other orders as the court thinks fit and proper.

The respondents' counsel in Kota Kinabalu had informed him of the proceedings and to engage counsel on 30 December 1993. They had withdrawn from representing him due to difficulties in contacting him. As a result, an order for substituted service of the petition was applied for on 6 April 1994 and granted on 5 May 1994.

The petitioner was an air hostess when she met and married the respondent, who was a third officer on a ship. She claims all her money was spent as he took long leave without pay. She had to stop working as the date of birth of their first child approached. The respondent had left her behind during that time in Kota Kinabalu. After their child was born, the petitioner had to work with a travel agency in Kota Kinabalu to support the child as the respondent was away most of the time. She earned RM600 per month. The respondent's family in Kota Kinabalu did not assist her. Her family had to come from Sungai Petani to help the petitioner look after the child.

In 1986, she had a better pay but she was persuaded by the respondent to move to Labuan where he has been promoted to First Officer. As she was carrying her second child, the respondent had mistreated her. In 1992, she was asked by the respondent to find work again as he was not going to support her and the children. The petitioner had then returned to Sungai Petani to leave her children with her parents and she returned to work as an air hostess. They had agreed to file a joint petition for divorce. He had suddenly changed his mind. The marriage had broken down irretrievably.

[176]

The respondent when visiting with the children had flown them via Penang to Kota Kinabalu. The children had mentioned that the respondent said he would bring them to Hong Kong. In the circumstances, the petitioner had applied for and obtained an interim custody order from the Shah Alam High Court.

The respondent in his reply said that the petitioner had in March 1986 left Kota Kinabalu to live in Selangor. He had joined them on 14 April 1986 until 9 July 1986. After that they had stayed together in Labuan until 16 September 1988. The second son was born in Labuan.

On 16 September 1988, both parties had gone to the United Kingdom with their children. On 17 December 1988, they had returned with their children to Labuan and stayed till 14 February 1990, and then moved to Kota Kinabalu until October 1990. Between October and December 1990, the petitioner went with their children to Sungai Petani and after December 1990 the respondent had brought the petitioner back to Kota Kinabalu. In May 1992, the petitioner had worked as an air hostess again, living in Kuala Lumpur while the children were left with the grandparents in Sungai Petani.

He had continued to send her RM1,000 per month until February 1986. He earned RM1,100 per month yet she wanted to move out to stay separately from his family. She brought her parents resulting in his having to support them also. She refused assistance from his family. Yet he had continued to send her RM1,000 per month to her bank account.

He complained he had no proper access to the children in Sungai Petani, and when he did, her family members were always there. He alleges the respondent's mother did not feed the children properly. He alleged he had provided for her at all times and she never needed to work.

He

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