HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
MELVIN LEE CAMPBELL – Appellant
Versus
AMY ANAK EDWARD SUMEK – Respondent
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.
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.