Court highlighted equal contributions of both spouses during marriage in asset division, while insufficient evidence for damages claims dictates separate civil action.

Wong Siong Tung J:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Wife Petitioner’s claims

[1]On 14-12-2023, the Wife Petitioner presented the Divorce Petition herein against the Husband Respondent seeking the dissolution of their marriage. In her Divorce Petition, the Wife Petitioner also claims against the Husband Respondent the following reliefs:

(a). Monthly maintenance of RM2,500.00;

(b). Equal division of the Husband Respondent’s registered share, interest and right in seven (7) parcels of land, alleged to be matrimonial properties;

(c). A sum of RM100,000.00 for physical harm and/or mental torture caused to the Wife Petitioner during the marriage;

(d). An order requiring the Husband Respondent to stay at least 100 feet away from the Wife Petitioner’s residence and workplace, and to refrain from disturbing or harassing the Petitioner, her family, friends, and relatives.

Brief facts

[2]In this case, after the birth of their eldest daughter in 1990, the Wife Petitioner and Husband Respondent married on 6-8-1991. Following their marriage, they had another daughter and two sons.

[3]The parties raised their family in a family house at Kanowit in the small town of Kanowit. The Husband Respondent operated a carpentry business under the firm name of H C Furniture, also located at Kanowit, which he inherited from his father.

[4]The Wife Petitioner worked as a housewife, taking care of their four children. The Court believes she also supplemented the family income by selling drinks at fairs and taking on any available tasks that generated income.

[5]All their children are now grown and independent. The two daughters are married with their own families. One son works in Singapore, and the other works in the Philippines. The Wife Petitioner and Husband Respondent now have seven grandchildren.

[6]The Wife Petitioner left the Husband Respondent sometime in January 2022. She stated that she left after confronting the Husband Respondent about an alleged extra-marital affair with a woman whose identity was unknown to her.

[7]The Wife Petitioner is now about 52 years old, and the Husband Respondent is about 61. Despite their 33-year marriage, shared life, and commitment to raising four children, they are now embroiled in a bitter and hostile divorce battle.

[8]Their once-shared life, built over decades, is now marred by intense animosity as they engage in a fierce battle over maintenance and matrimonial properties.

[9]Each accuses the other of improper and cruel conducts including issues related to their private sexual life during their marriage, attempting to sway the Court to see their spouse in the worst light possible. The level of animosity between them is so intense that it seems as though they want to see each other completely ruined, ironically despite after about 33 years of shared life.

[10]The Husband Respondent denies the various allegations made by the Wife Petitioner. While he acknowledges that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, he contends that the Wife Petitioner is not entitled to any of the other claims made in her petition.

[11]Thus, there is no issue between the parties that their marriage has irretrievably broken down.

The issues for determination

[12]The 3 main issues for the Court’s determination are:

(a)Whether the Husband Respondent should be ordered to pay maintenance to the Wife Petitioner, and if so, what is the fair and reasonable the amount;

(b)Whether the Wife Petitioner is entitled to a share in the division of the Husband Respondent’s registered share, interest and right in seven parcels of land; and

(c)Whether the Husband Respondent is liable to pay damages to the Wife Petitioner for physical harm and/or mental torture allegedly inflicted by his upon her during the marriage.

Maintenance to the Wife Petitioner

[13] Section 77 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRMDA)

[14]Section 78LRMDA

See: Dr Shameni Pillai PB Rajedran v. Dr S Arulselvam Sanggilly & Anor Parkunan Achulingam v. Kalaiyarasy Periasamy

[15]Regarding the responsibility for t