JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was the Petitioner's application in encl 6 for interim reliefs pertaining to assets and the child of the marriage.

[2] However, before the hearing of this application, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Court had no jurisdiction on ground that the Petitioner had failed to meet the requirement of 'residence', and as such, both enclosure 6 and the petition for judicial separation filed by the Petitioner should be struck out.

The Factual Background

[3] The Petitioner, a United Kingdom ("UK") citizen, and the Respondent, a Malaysian national (collectively referred to as "the Parties"), were 58 and 38 years old respectively at the time of the hearing of this application. The Parties were married in Singapore in August 2016 and subsequently registered their marriage in Malaysia in September 2017. It was the Petitioner's second marriage and the Respondent's first. In January 2022, the Parties welcomed a daughter ("the Child").

[4] After the marriage, the Parties resided at various locations before the Respondent finally settled in an apartment in Kuala Lumpur known as "the Millerz Home". The Petitioner runs a start-up company and is a director at a company, CQS Sdn Bhd ("CQS").

[5] The marriage was unable to withstand the test of time and after allegations of violence, unreasonable behaviour and adultery, in November 2024, the Petitioner filed a judicial separation petition ("the Judicial Separation Petition"). On the same day he filed an application for interim reliefs ("this Application") pertaining to the Child and assets.

[6] Prior to the hearing of this Application, a preliminary objection was raised on the ground that this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear either this Application or the Judicial Separation Petition. The objection was based on the Petitioner's alleged failure to satisfy the requirement of 'residence' under s 48 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act"), which is a prerequisite for filing the Judicial Separation Petition as well as this Application.

The Issue

[7] The issue, therefore, was whether the Petitioner was a resident of Malaysia at the time of filing the Judicial Separation Petition and this Application.

[8] I found that the Petitioner was not a resident of Malaysia, and, therefore, allowed the preliminary objection, for the following reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

[9] The starting point in addressing the preliminary objection was s 48 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, which reads:

Section 48 - Extent of power to grant relief

...

(2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Court to make any decree of judicial separation except:

(a) where the marriage has been registered or deemed to be registered under this Act; or

(b) where the marriage between the parties was contracted under a law providing that, or in contemplation of which, marriage is monogamous; and

(c) where both the parties to the marriage reside in Malaysia at the time of the commencement of proceedings.

[Emphasis Added]

[10] The word "reside" in s 48(2) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act is not defined, but my attention was brought to the meaning of it provided for in LexisNexis Malaysia's Words, Phrases and Maxims:

Residence is a word used in law to denote the fact that a person dwells in a given place or in the case of a corporation that the management is carried on there.... The place where a man established his abode and makes the seat of his property and exercises his civil and political rights; the place where one habitually sleeps; where one sleeps and lives: the place where a man is chiefly to be found. Of a corporation, its chief office or place of business, the place where the real trade or business is carried on; in another sense, its citizenship.

[Emphasis Added]

[11] In my view, the Petitioner had not met the threshold of 'residence' or 'reside' as prescribed by s 48 of the Law Reform