JUDGMENT

Raja Segaran S Krishnan JC:

A. Introduction

[1] This matter comes before the Court by way of an ex parte originating summons filed by the two applicants, who are husband and wife, seeking leave to file what is described as a joint divorce petition within one month from the date of the order. The application is expressed to be made in respect of s 52 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("the Act").

[2] The marriage is of short duration. The materials placed before the Court show that the applicants were married on 10 August 2024 and that, at the time of the present application, two years had not elapsed from the date of the marriage.

[3] The central legal controversy is not whether the marriage has encountered difficulties. The decisive question is whether, on the true construction of Part VI of the Act, this Court has power to permit the presentation of a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent before the expiration of two years from the date of marriage.

[4] That question requires close attention to the statutory structure. s 50 imposes a restriction on petitions within two years of marriage, subject to a limited dispensation. s 52 separately provides for dissolution by mutual consent but does so in terms that expressly refer to a joint petition being presented after the expiration of two years from the date of marriage.

[5] The application therefore raises two issues. First, whether s 50(2) may be invoked to overcome the temporal requirement expressly stated in s 52. Secondly, if it may, whether the affidavit evidence in the present case reaches the statutory threshold. In my judgment, the first issue is determinative and must be answered in the negative. Even if that were not so, the evidence disclosed in the supporting affidavit would still be insufficient to justify the extraordinary leave sought.

B. Material Facts And Procedural History

[6] The applicants are Thomas Reynold and Ng Shu Ru. The supporting affidavit states that both are Malaysian citizens, domiciled in Malaysia, and reside at No. 3, Lorong 2, Jalan SJ 6, Taman Seri Jati, 75350 Batu Berendam, Melaka.

[7] The marriage was solemnised on 10 August 2024 before The Management Committee of Pak Thiam Kiong and registered under Marriage Register No. KC05 0835330. The copy of the marriage register exhibited as "TN-1" confirms the date of marriage, the names of the parties, the place of marriage, and the fact of registration.

[8] The affidavit further states that there are no biological or adopted children of the marriage.

[9] On 12 January 2026, the applicants jointly affirmed the supporting affidavit. In it, they state that they had been advised that leave of Court was required because their marriage remained within the period of two years from the date of registration. They also state, in general terms, that the marriage can no longer be restored because they are facing issues involving a third party and domestic violence, and that they have discussed the matter and decided to end the marriage as soon as possible in order to avoid continuing emotional and mental pressure.

[10] On 23 February 2026, the present originating summons was filed in the High Court of Malaya at Melaka. The relief sought is framed in two parts. First, that the applicants be allowed to file a joint divorce petition within one month from the date of the order. Secondly, for such further orders as may be just and necessary. The face of the summons recites that the matter is brought under s 52 of the Act.

[11] The matter was fixed for hearing on 5 March 2026. The record before the Court for purposes of this application consists of the originating summons, the supporting affidavit and its exhibit, together with the statutory materials placed before the Court , namely the Act and the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Rules 1982.

C. Issues For Determination

[12] The issues for determination are as follows:

Principal issue

(a) Whether the Court has jurisdiction or power unde