Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2543
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CHAN – Appellant
Versus
SHAN & ORS; ALIR (INTERVENER) – Respondent
[Divorce Petition No: WA-33-546-09/2018]
The court held that allegations must be proven by a balance of probabilities in divorce cases, and both parties share responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage, impacting spousal maintenance and asset division.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976 - Sections 53 and 54 - Divorce proceedings wherein a wife petitions for relief including spousal maintenance and division of matrimonial assets while the husband cross-petitions for divorce - The court navigated issues of alleged adultery, understanding of intolerability in the context of marital breakdown, and the apportionment of financial obligations. (Paras 24, 236-239, 262, 302-303, 532-543)
(B) Legal standard of proof - The petitioner is required to prove allegations of adultery by a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt - Where allegations are unsubstantiated, they cannot serve as grounds for divorce. (Paras 87-92, 244-246)
(C) Admissibility of evidence - The court ruled on various applications regarding the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the divorce proceedings, criticized the improper nature of clandestinely obtained evidence, and emphasized the importance of open communication in family disputes. (Paras 30-40, 61-68)
(D) Spousal maintenance - Established that spousal duties must align with the means and needs test, considering both parties' contributions to the marriage and the changes in lifestyle post-divorce. (Para 355) (E) Division of matrimonial assets - Affirmed entitlement to matrimonial assets is contingent upon contributions made during the marriage; ruled that the value of shared properties and financial contributions should guide the final decisions. (Paras 359-360, 388) (F) Costs - Both parties ordered to bear their legal costs, reflecting mutual responsibility for the marriage's breakdown and the contentious nature of the proceedings. (Paras 522-533)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. divorce petition details. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 24) |
| 2. final judgments on maintenance. (Para 28 , 29 , 447) |
| 3. admissibility of evidence determined. (Para 30 , 31 , 80 , 286) |
| 4. criteria for spousal maintenance. (Para 76 , 312 , 428) |
| 5. final decision on spousal maintenance. (Para 458 , 541) |
Introduction
[1] This was the Petitioner-Wife's divorce petition, seeking a divorce, spousal maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets, whilst the Respondent-Husband cross-petitioned for a divorce. The Petitioner also sought damages from the First and Second Co-Respondents for alleged adultery with the Respondent which the Petitioner claimed had caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
[2] To protect the privacy of all parties involved in these proceedings and in consideration of the sensitivity of the issues at hand, the Petitioner and Respondent have been anonymised as "CHAN" and "SHAN," respectively. Similarly, the First and Second Co-Respondents have been anonymised as "RHAN" and "KHAN," respectively. The Intervener will be referred to as "ALIR" throughout this judgment.
The Factual Background
[3] This narrative follows a marriage that started off glamorous and exciting, filled with luxury and adventure. To everyone else, the couple seemed successful and happy, their relationship strengthened by wealth and shared experiences. But behind the scenes, cracks began to show as time passed. What once seemed like a perfect love story slowly started falling apart, revealing deeper issues. Arguments grew, with accusations of cheating, jealousy, and mistrust. The pressure from society and constant scrutiny only made things worse, eventually leading to the marriage's messy breakdown.
[4] The parties involved in this legal dispute are the Petitioner, an Indian citizen and permanent resident of Malaysia, and the Respondent, a Malaysian citizen known for his entrepreneurial ventures (collectively "the Parties"). The Respondent is the executive director of a company referred to in this judgment as "ALIR".
[5] ALIR started in the textile trade but grew into a leading luxury retail specialist in Southeast Asia, currently operating over 400 stores across several countries and representing more than 200 brands.
[6] The First Co-Respondent, was not just an acquaintance of the Respondent but was deeply embedded in his personal and social circles. She was a long-time family friend and held a close connection to the Respondent's inner circle. The First Co-Respondent is also the wife of the Respondent's closest friend, identified in Court as CRW1. Their association was further reinforced by their shared closely-knit community ties, which meant that their families and social networks were well-acquainted. At one point during legal proceedings, the Respondent had informed the Court that the First Co-Respondent was in fact related to him, suggesting a familial link beyond mere friendship.
[7] In addition to her personal ties to the Respondent, the First Co-Respondent was an established businesswoman operating in the jewellery and watch industry. She was recognised for her independent entrepreneurial ventures, having expanded her business dealings. The evidence before this Court indicated that the First Co-Respondent was not only socially influential but also a successful professional in her own right, managing and growing a business in a highly competitive luxury retail market.
[8] The Second Co-Respondent was employed at ALIR and collaborated closely with the Respondent in her professional capacity. However, her employment at ALIR ended when she departed from the company in 2016.
[9] At the time of the trial of the divorce petition and cross-petition, the Petitioner and Respondent were 50 and 52 years old, respectively. Their union began in July 1999, and for the first decade of their marriage, they resided in the Respondent's parents' home. During this period, they welcomed two children — a son ("the Son"), born in 2002
