JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was the petitioner-wife's divorce petition, seeking, amongst other things, a divorce, spousal and child maintenance, guardianship and custody of the children of the marriage, division of matrimonial assets, and damages from the co-respondent. The Respondent-Husband cross-petitioned for divorce, joint guardianship and joint custody of the children of the marriage and division of matrimonial assets.

[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 IVA and ROM respectively, whilst the co-respondent has been anonymised as ARB.

The Factual Background

[3] The petitioner and respondent were married in January 2003, and their union produced two daughters, born in 2004 and 2010 respectively ("the children").

[4] Over time, the marriage broke down amid allegations of adultery and abuse. In March 2021, after police reports were lodged and the petitioner secured an interim protection order ("IPO"), the respondent vacated the matrimonial home in Kuala Lumpur ("the Matrimonial Home"), following the petitioner's packing and removal of the respondent's belongings.

[5] In April 2021, the IPO was set aside pursuant to the respondent's application. The respondent subsequently applied for interim access to the Children. In February 2023, the parties entered into a consent order regulating such access.

[6] That same month, the petitioner filed for divorce, and the respondent cross-petitioned.

[7] In October 2023, pursuant to an application for ancillary relief, the petitioner obtained several orders relating to spousal and child maintenance.

The Issues

[8] The issues that had to be addressed by this court were as follows:

(a) Spousal maintenance — in deciding whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to the petitioner, the following broad issues were imperative to consider:

(i) The cause of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, namely:

(A) Whether the petitioner had proved the allegations of adultery between the respondent and the co-respondent, so as to also justify an award of damages against the co-respondent;

(B) Whether the respondent had established that it was the petitioner's unreasonable behaviour that had caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

(ii) Whether the petitioner had satisfied the 'means and needs' test to justify the amount of spousal maintenance sought.

(b) Children — Whether the petitioner and respondent should be awarded joint guardianship and custody pertaining to the Children, and whether the respondent was obligated to pay child maintenance.

(c) Matrimonial Assets — Whether the petitioner and respondent were entitled to the division of matrimonial assets as pleaded.

[9] The court granted the divorce, with the decree nisi made absolute forthwith. Both parties were awarded joint guardianship of the younger child, as the older child had already attained the age of majority at the time of the trial. The petitioner retained sole custody, care, and control of the younger child, whilst the respondent was granted access. The respondent was ordered to pay maintenance for the Children, and the matrimonial assets were apportioned according to each party's respective contributions. However, the court declined to award the Petitioner damages against the co-respondent.

[10] The following were my reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

Spousal Maintenance

[11] In determining the issue of maintenance, reference was made to s 77(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act"), which reads:

Section 77 — Power of to order maintenance of spouse

(1) The court may order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife:

(a) during the course of any matrimonial proceedings:

(b) when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of divorce or judicial separation:

(c) if, after a decree declaring her p