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

1988 MarsdenLR 745

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
MELVIN LEE CAMPBELL – Appellant
Versus
AMY ANAK EDWARD SUMEK – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Tan Thiaw Chong J:

The matter which calls for determination by this court at this hearing relates to the domicile of the husband petitioner at the time when the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was presented under section 52 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

3

Section 48(1) of the 1976 Act provides, inter alia, that nothing in that Act shall authorize the court to make any decree of divorce except "(c) where the domicile of the parties to the marriage at the time when the petition is presented is in Malaysia". There is no question about the wife petitioner at the material time being domiciled in Malaysia. The provision of section 48(1)(c) in my view requires that the court must be satisfied that at the time when the petition in the instant case was presented, the domicile of both the petitioners was in Malaysia. It is true that in the instant petition itself, the husband petitioner asserts that at the time of the presentation of the petition he was domiciled in Malaysia, and this is supported and reiterated in his affidavit sworn on 13 July 1987. In this instance, I would observe that the evidence of the husband petitioner states that he was, and i

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top