A marriage is deemed valid only if registered under law; an unregistered customary marriage is void, and a legally registered marriage prevails under marriage laws.

BACKGROUND FACTS

This Judgment is in respect of the 2 appeals filed on 21.12.2011 against the whole of my decision made on 8.12.2011 regarding enclosures 13 and 6.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows:

The Petitioner and Wong Yet Long ("WYL") (now deceased) were married in 1966 under a Chinese customary marriage, including a tea ceremony. On 24.10.1973, the marriage of the Petitioner to WYL was registered under the Civil Marriage Ordinance 1952 ("the CMO"). The Petitioner and WYL had 4 children now ages 44, 42, 41 and 37 years.

The Respondent pleaded in her Answer and Amended Answer (enclosures 9 and 11) that on 8.3.1981 she married WYL in a tea ceremony under Chinese custom ("the customary marriage") and they had 2 children, namely:

i) Wong Shee Kai, born on 12.12.1981; and

ii) Wong Shee Hau, born on 5.8.1983.s

The alleged customary marriage between the Respondent and WYL was never registered under the CMO. Neither was it registered under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("the LRA").

On 28.9.2004 WYL passed away.

On or about 17.3.2006, the Respondent and 2 others filed a civil suit ie; No. D5-22-348-06 at the High Court Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. This action was later withdrawn by consent.

On or about 21.9.2006, the Respondent filed a Petition for Letters of Administration No. S5-31-579-2006 at the High Court Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. That civil suit is currently pending appeal on 3 interlocutory matters at the Court of Appeal.

At the outset of the Hearing before me of enclosures 13 and 6, Counsel for the Respondent applied for postponement of this case on the ground that the 3 interlocutory matters for case No. S5-31-579-2006 are pending settlement before the Hearing at the Court of Appeal.

I did not allow the postponement as the matters before the Court of Appeal are regarding Letters of Administration and inheritance and are totally different from the issue before this Court which is regarding the legal status of the alleged customary marriage between the Respondent and WYL In my opinion, by proceeding with the Hearing on enclosures 13 and 6, any decision made by this Court would determine the status of the alleged customary marriage and bring legal certainty to the situation between the parties.

Enclosure 6

In enclosure 6, which amended the Petition of the Petitioner in enclosure 1, the Petitioner prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the marriage between the Petitioner WYL is a valid marriage in fact and in law.

2. A declaration that the customary marriage on 8.3.1981 between the Respondent and WYL contravenes s. 4 of the CMO and is null and void;

3. A declaration that, following from the declaration in paragraph 2 above, the customary marriage between the Respondent and WYL on 8.3.1981 is not valid under s. 4 of the LRA;

4. Costs;

5. A consequential order which would bring effect and relief to the Petitioner regarding this application.

Enclosure 13

In enclosure 13, the Petitioner prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

1. that this Honourable Court is required to determine a question of law whether the alleged customary marriage on 8.3.1981 between the Respondent and WYL is valid pursuant to the CMO and/or s. 4 of the LRA;

2. that after determining the legal question in paragraph 1 above, whether the Respondent and/or the children of the Respondent have the right of inheritance and succession in the estate of the deceased WYL following the death of WYL, intestate;

3. costs;

4. any consequential order which would bring effect and relief to the Petitioner regarding this application.

Enclosures 9 and 11

Enclosure 9 is the Affidavit In Reply of the Respondent to the Amended Petition of the Petitioner (enclosure 6). Enclosure 11 is the Answer of the Respondent to the Amended Petition (enclosure 6). In enclosure 11, the Respondent applied for the Amended Petition