SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 5645

Hamid Sultan, JC
Yong Fuat Meng – Plaintiff
Versus
Chin Yoon Kew – Defendant



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr Mohd Rafie bin Mohd Shafie, En Hanif Khatri, En Saferi bin Ali

The civil court retains jurisdiction to hear divorce petitions under the Law Reform Act even if one spouse has converted to Islam, and marriage does not automatically dissolve due to conversion.

Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 51 - Islamic Family Law Ordinance 2001 (Sarawak) - Section 44 - Jurisdiction of civil court following a party's conversion to Islam - Civil court retains jurisdiction to hear petitions under the Act even after one party's conversion - Requirement is that the other party is a non-Muslim and petitions under the Act, which is unaffected by conversion - Court clarifies that the marriage does not dissolve automatically upon conversion and requires civil proceedings for dissolution. (Paras 1-36)

(B) Jurisdiction - Conversion to Islam and its effect on marital status - Civil court's jurisdiction over divorce matters involving non-Muslim spouses remains valid post-conversion, ensuring proper judicial oversight. (Paras 37-50)

(C) Equity and Justice - Islamic personal law must align with statutory mandates while respecting the rights of all parties involved; courts should avoid legal lacunae created by potential conflicts in jurisdiction. (Paras 51-70)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having embraced Islam nearly two decades after marrying under civil law, seeks divorce from a non-Muslim spouse, raising questions of the civil court's jurisdiction. The wife remained a non-Muslim, complicating the petition under the LRA 1976.

Findings of Court:
The High Court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case, emphasizing the legal principles concerning conversion and jurisdictional intent of Parliament.

Issues: Key issues addressed included the impact of conversion on marital status, jurisdiction of the civil court in such matters, and the interpretation of relevant statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that conversion does not dissolve the marriage automatically under Islamic law, supporting the civil court's authority to adjudicate the divorce.

Result: The marriage was ordered to be dissolved, allowing access to divorce proceedings for the petitioner.

Hamid Sultan JC:

This is my judgment in respect of the issue of jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by the petitioner who has embraced Islam nearly 20 years after the solemnisation of his marriage under the civil law. The respondent (wife) is still a non-Muslim.

The real issue before deciding the petition and granting the relief is to decide whether the civil court has jurisdiction in light of s 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (‘LRA 1976’), which says that when one party to a marriage has converted to Islam, the other party who has not so converted may petition for divorce. The section reads as follows:

(1)Where one party to a marriage has converted to Islam, the other party who has not so converted may petition for divorce:

Provided that no petition under this section shall be presented before the expiration of the period of three months from the date of the conversion.

(2)The Court upon dissolving the marriage may make provision for the wife or husband, and for the support, care and custody of the children of the marriage, if any, and may attach any conditions to the decree of the dissolution as it thinks fit.

(3)Section 50 shall not apply to any petition for divorce under this section.

In this case, the problem is that the petitioner who had converted has filed the petition, which will appear to be non permissible under the above section and/or s 3 of the said LRA 1976.

The second issue is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition when s 44 of the Islamic Family Law Ordinance 2001 (Sarawak) (‘ IFLO 2001’) states:

(1)The renunciation of Islam by either party to a marriage or his or her conversion to a faith other than Islam shall not by itself operate to dissolve the marriage unless and until so confirmed by the court.

(2)The conversion to Islam by either party to a non-Muslim marriage shall not by itself operate to dissolve the marriage unless and until so confirmed by the court.

(Similar provisions are found in other states, Family Law Ordinance and court here means Shariah Court).

PRELIMINARIES

There are a number of decisions of the civil court which has dealt with the issue of jurisdiction in relation to conversion in the area of marriage, apostasy, death etc; some of them are as follows: (1) Tang Sung Mooi (f) v Too Miew Kim [1994] 3 MLJ 117Subashini a/p Rajasingam v Saravanan a/l Thangathoray and other appeals 2008 MarsdenLR 4185 Dalip Kaur v Pegawal Polis Daerah , Balai Polis Daerah, Bukit Mertajam & Anor 1991 MarsdenLR 888 Soon Singh a/l Bikar Singh v Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) Kedah & Anor [1999] 1 MLJ 489 Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & lain-lain [2007] 4 MLJ 585Kamariah bte Ali & lain-lain v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan & satu lagi [2005] 1 MLJ 197 Sia Kwee Hin v Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan 1999 MarsdenLR 1349 Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992] 2 MLJ 793Majlis Ugama Islam Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai v Shaik Zolkaffily bin Shaik Natar & Ors [2003] 3 MLJ 705 Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah Al Mustain Billah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Abu Bakar Ri’ayatuddin Al Mu’adzam Shah [1996] 1 MLJ 617Sultan of Johore v Abu Bakar Tunku Aris Bendahara & Ors [1952] AC 318Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak (an infant, by his guardian ad litem, Syed Ahmad Johari bin Syed Mohd) & Ors v Fatimah bte Sihi & Ors [2006] 4 MLJ 605Ramah bte Ta’at v Laton bte Malim Sutan [1927] 6 FMSLR 128 (Supreme Court), (14) Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah Penjara Malaysia & Anor [1999] 2 MLJ 241Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101Commissioner For Religious Affairs, Terengganu & Ors v Tengku Mariam bte Tengku Sri Wa Raja & Anor [1970] 1 MLJ 222Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang v Isa Abdul Rahman & satu lagi [1992] 2 MLJ 244Nordin bin SalIeh v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan & Anor [1993] 3 MLJ 344Azizah bte Shaik Ismail & Anor v Fatimah

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top