Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1915
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BOO – Appellant
Versus
YOO – Respondent
[Originating Summon No: WA-24F-186-07/2024]
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody cases, warranting joint guardianship and appropriate access arrangements for both parents.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Sections 88 and 89 - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 - Section 5 - Custody and guardianship of children - Plaintiff-Wife sought sole custody of the Child, but the court found the principles of the doctrine of tender years satisfactory for the Defendant-Husband's custody. The welfare of the Child was paramount, considering both parents' ability to provide a stable environment. The Plaintiff's financial instability and past relocations raised concerns about her parenting capabilities. The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining the Child's connections and stability, resulting in the decision to grant custody to the Defendant while allowing the Plaintiff liberal access. Joint guardianship remains, ensuring cooperation in upbringing matters. (Paras 18, 19, 57, 59, 74)
(B) Child maintenance - Both parents are obliged to maintain their children, but financial contributions must reflect actual needs. The court decreed that the Defendant would provide a monthly sum of MYR750 for the Plaintiff to support access arrangements as part of the decree. (Paras 69, 72)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the marriage and custody circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. key issues arising from custody application. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 3. court's analysis of the tender years doctrine and child's welfare. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence concerning custody suitability. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 5. determination of custody, guardianship, and access rights. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 6. final decisions on custody and maintenance obligations. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
Introduction
[1] This was an application ("this Application") filed by the Plaintiff-Wife for, inter alia, sole custody, care and control of the child of the marriage together with various ancillary prayers.
[2] Given the privacy of parties and sensitivity of issues in these proceedings, the Plaintiff-Wife and Defendant-Husband, have been anonymised in these grounds of judgment respectively as BOO and YOO respectively.
The Factual Background
[3] The Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively "the Parties"), aged 31 and 40 respectively at the time of the hearing of this Application, entered into matrimony in February 2020. Their union was soon followed by the birth of their child in June 2020 ("the Child"). During the marriage, the Parties resided in the Defendant's parents' home in Bandar Kinrara, Puchong.
[4] However, the marriage faced significant challenges from the outset. Tensions between the Parties existed even before the marriage, and their decision to formalise their relationship was largely influenced by the Plaintiff's pregnancy. These underlying issues created a fragile foundation for the relationship, contributing to ongoing discord.
[5] The situation continued to deteriorate as the pressures of married life and unresolved conflicts between the Parties grew increasingly untenable. By December 2020, the strain on the relationship had reached a breaking point. A significant contributing factor to the growing tension was the Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the living arrangements. Residing in the Defendant's parents' home had led to friction, with the Plaintiff feeling constrained and uncomfortable in the shared household environment. These circumstances amplified existing issues between the Parties, making it difficult for them to coexist harmoniously.
[6] In December 2020, unable to reconcile her dissatisfaction and discomfort with the living situation, the Plaintiff made the decision to leave. She relocated to her mother's residence in Subang, signifying a clear departure from the marital home and an escalation in the breakdown of the marriage. This move not only highlighted the irreconcilable differences between the Parties but also marked a significant turning point in their relationship, as it underscored the inability to find common ground or resolve the ongoing challenges within their marriage.
[7] In an effort to address the challenges in their relationship and create a more stable environment, the Defendant took steps to secure independent living arrangements for the family. Consequently, the Defendant acquired a residence in Taman Damai Utama, Puchong ("the Matrimonial Home'). This move was intended to alleviate the Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the previous living arrangements at the Defendant's parents' home and to provide the Parties with an opportunity to rebuild their relationship in a more private and neutral setting.
[8] The Plaintiff returned to the Matrimonial Home in January 2021 after staying at her mother's residence, indicating a possible willingness to reconcile and address their marital issues. However, this attempt at rebuilding the family dynamic was soon met with a new development. In March 2021, the Plaintiff invited her 18-year-o
