Interim maintenance claims during matrimonial proceedings must consider the financial needs of the petitioning spouse.

Introduction

[1] This appeal relates to a decision of the High Court dismissing the petitioner wife's application for the following orders:

i. Prayer 3(a) - the 1st respondent husband be restrained and/or barred from withdrawing his savings from the Employees Provident Fund ("EPF") until the disposal of the petition under s 102 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("the LRA 1976");

ii. Prayer 3(c) - the 1st respondent husband be restrained and/or barred from withdrawing his unit trusts including those in Unit Trust Public Mutual;

iii Prayer 4(a) - the 1st respondent husband be barred from selling, mortgaging or charging the matrimonial home bearing postal address No 73, Jalan TTS 4, Taman Tasik Semenyih, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor ("the Semenyih house");

iv. Prayer 4(b) - the 1st respondent husband be barred from selling, mortgaging or charging one unit condominium known as Parcel No N-23-2 (Northwing) type B1 level 23 held under master title Geran No 70570, Lot 323, Bandar Kuala Lumpur ("the Capsquare Condominium unit"); and

v. Prayer 5 - The 1st respondent husband pays to the petitioner wife interim maintenance in the sum of RM15,000.00 per month until the hearing of the petition.

[2] In this judgment, the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Court below.

The Salient Facts

[3] The marriage of the petitioner wife and the 1st respondent husband was registered on 29 June 2010.

[4] During the marriage, the 1st respondent husband who was an employee of Petronas resided for the most part in Uzbekistan whilst the petitioner wife resided in Malaysia in her home at No 56, Jalan Prima Saujana 1/2H, Seksyen 1, Taman Prima Saujana, 4300 Kajang, Selangor ("the Kajang house"). The petitioner wife and the 1st respondent husband lived together for about four months at the Semenyih house.

[5] On 29 May 2013, the petitioner wife filed a petition for the dissolution of the marriage (in which adultery is alleged) citing her husband as the 1st respondent and one Geetha Ganapathy as the 2nd respondent.

[6] On 31 May 2013, the petitioner wife obtained an interim ex parte order restraining the 1st respondent husband from withdrawing his savings in the EPF account until disposal of the inter partes application.

[7] On 5 December 2013, the learned judge after hearing of petitioner wife's application inter partes dismissed the same.

Findings Of The High Court

[8] In essence, the learned judge's findings may be summarised as follows:

a) Prayer 3(a) was dismissed as it would offend against the provision of s 51(1)(c) of the EPF Act 1991 which provides that no amount standing to the credit of a member of the fund shall be assignable, transferable, liable to be attached, sequestered, levied upon for, or in respect of, any debt of claim whatsoever;

b) Prayer 3(c) was dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the 1st respondent husband is about to or had taken any steps to dissipate the unit trusts;

c) Prayer 4(a) was dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the 1st respondent husband is about to or had taken any steps to dissipate the Semenyih house;

d) Prayer 4(b) was dismissed on the ground that the Capsquare Condominium unit is charged to CIMB Bank and since it is jointly owned by the petitioner wife and the 1st respondent husband, neither of them can sell the property without the consent of the other. Further there is no evidence of the 1st respondent husband trying to dissipate the property; and

e) Prayer 5 was dismissed on the grounds that since the petitioner wife alleges adultery in the petition, the Court