A spouse's financial contributions and responsibilities for children greatly influence maintenance and asset division in divorce proceedings.

1. Petitioner husband and respondent wife were married according to traditional Indian custom on 7-9-1978 prior to the coming into force of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164]. Section 6 recognizes such marriage and deems it to be registered under Act 164 and it can only be dissolved under the Act.

Dissolution

2. From the evidence petitioner and respondent have been living apart since 1996 when petitioner was transferred to Pengkalan Hulu. Petitioner's assertion that respondent left the matrimonial home together with their 4 children in 1990 to her mother's house in Bedong is not accepted. This is because from 1989-1996 the family were staying in Bagan Serai and the children studying there as evident from various certificates showing their examination results and participation in school activities. Although respondent is resisting petitioner's petition the marriage be dissolved, I find it just and reasonable to order a dissolution on the ground of the parties living apart for more than 2 years ever since 1996. I have considered the 4 children of the marriage have attained the age of 18 years and petitioner's admission he has been living with another woman since 1992.

3. Petitioner was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage when upon his transfer to Pengkalan Hulu in 1996 he did not allow respondent and children to follow him ostensibly because of children's education and he needed time to find a house there and later as transpired this was due to his relationship with another woman.

Matrimonial asset

4. In respondent cross petition she has sought division of matrimonial assets. The evidence adduced shows there is only 1 property which is a house in Bandar Puteri Jaya, Sungai Petani (the house). Petitioner said he bought the house in 2003 with a government loan and he was no longer living with respondent then.

5. Section 76 of Act 164 relates to the power of the court to order division of matrimonial assets acquired during marriage by the joint efforts of parties. Subsection (2) provides in the exercise of such power the court shall have regard among others to "the extent of the contribution made by each party in money, property, or work towards the acquiring of the assets" and subject to the aforesaid considerations "the court shall incline towards equality of division". In Koay Cheng Eng v. Linda Herawati Santoso , the court of Appeal stated at page 122 that:-

"We are in agreement with the learned judge that the respondent wife cannot be said to have not contributed financially to the said property. The respondent had used her salaries towards the upkeep of the household as well as buy groceries. To us, this would be contribution by the respondent and she is entitled for the share of the property. ... In Lee Yu Lan v. Lim Thain Chye [1983] 2 MLRH 253 , , the wife had claimed that she had contributed to the matrimonial home by "caring and rearing the children at home".... the house was bought by the husband and he had sold it. ... The court considered the debts the husband had to pay ... and the court's proposal to make an order for maintenance for the wife. The court decided she be given RM60,000 which was about 1/3 of the full purchase price of RM191,000".

6. Although parties were not staying together when petitioner bought the house, the marriage was still existing. Respondent was harbouring the hope she and the children could join him and all the while she was contributing towards the family by taking care of the children and household expenses. The evidence shows she had been working since 1993 with petitioner's permission. Then the petition