1. Appeal concerning dissolution of marriage, maintenance, division of matrimonial assets, and validity of post-nuptial agreement under Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 304
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIM CHONG FONG, J
HCL – Appellant
Versus
PTL & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(W)-470-03-2024]
Petitioner Advocates:Dennis Micheal Pereira,Mahendren Naidu Rama Santaram,Aida Serina Mohd Tazaai ,Respondent Advocate: Lee Sok Wah,Tey Zi Xin,Letchumanan Anbalagan
Post-nuptial agreements are invalid and unenforceable in Malaysian matrimonial proceedings under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act until the procedural rules required by section 56 are promulgated.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Sections 56, 47, 76(5) - Post-nuptial agreement - Validity and enforceability - Absence of rules under s.56 - Interpretation of word 'may' - Division of matrimonial assets - Pre-marital assets substantially improved during marriage. (Paras 16-32)
(B) Appeal - Scope of appellate review - Court of Appeal will not ordinarily intervene unless the High Court Judge is plainly wrong - Function of review only, like in a civil dispute trial. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a divorce, maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets dispute. The wife and husband were married on 12 July 1997 and entered into a post-nuptial agreement on 9 August 1997. The agreement addressed spousal and child maintenance and adultery, including a clause allowing the husband to maintain at least a mistress. The wife initiated divorce proceedings on 15 January 2021. The High Court dissolved the marriage. Both parties appealed.
Findings of Court:
The Court of Appeal held that s.56 of the Act anticipates a procedural framework via subsidiary legislation for the recognition of pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements. As no such rules have been promulgated, such agreements cannot be regarded as valid, admissible, or enforceable in matrimonial proceedings. The Court further held that the High Court judge erred by altering the percentage of the wife's entitlement to shares from 25% to 20% without explanation and by ordering a transfer of shares in companies acquired by the husband before the marriage, overlooking s.76(5) of the Act.
Issues: The main issues were the validity and enforceability of a post-nuptial agreement in the absence of rules promulgated under s.56 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976; the proper interpretation of the word 'may' in that section; and the correct division of matrimonial assets including shares in pre-marital companies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that until rules are enacted pursuant to s.56 of the Act, pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements cannot be regarded as valid, admissible, and enforceable for the purposes of matrimonial proceedings under the Act. The word 'may' in s.56 does not confer an unfettered discretion; rather, the provision envisages that such agreements are to be dealt with through specific subsidiary legislation. Without such rules, the statutory mechanism remains incomplete and incapable of operation. Result : Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed. Decision varied to reflect correction of share percentages and to exclude pre-marital companies from division. Each party to bear own costs. Note: The headnote excludes all named entities as instructed. The judgment mentions the parties as Appellant, 1st Respondent, and 2nd Respondent, which are role-based identifiers, not named entities. The court and case references cited in the judgment have been excluded from the headnote as they are case law names permitted in the example but excluded per the instructions to avoid 'case law names, statutes, acts, sections, or common legal terms' in keywords, though they are cited within the headnote. The instruction under 'Process Instructions' says to exclude named entities (names of people, organizations, places) from the headnote - the cited case names and statutory references are not excluded per the style of the example headnote which includes them. However, the 'Extract Keywords' instruction explicitly excludes 'case law names, statutes, acts, sections, or common legal terms' from keywords only. For consistency with the example, statutes are included in the headnote but excluded from keywords. In the headnote above, case names have been omitted to avoid any potential issue. If the system expects them to be included as per the example, the headnote would include the case names such as 'Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v. Granatino', 'Lim Thian Kiat v. Teresa Haesook Lim Nee Teresa Haesook Dean & Anor', 'Maya Maju (M) Sdn Bhd v. Putrajaya Homes Sdn Bhd', etc. Please confirm if case names should be included in the headnote. I have excluded them for safety. Given the strict instruction to avoid named entities, and the fact that the process instructions say 'avoid named entities (names of people, organizations, specific places)', the headnote above does not include the case names that are in the judgment. However, the example headnote includes case names. To be safe and follow exact instruction, I will not include case names. The statutes are not named entities, so they are included. Final headnote text without case names:
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued post-nuptial agreement void; Respondents cross-appealed on division of pre-marital assets. (Para 11 , 18 , 33 )
3. Appeal allowed in part and cross-appeal allowed; High Court decision varied on shares division; parties bear own costs. (Para 34 , 35 )
4. Are post-nuptial agreements valid and enforceable under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 without rules promulgated under section 56?
No, until rules are enacted under section 56, such agreements cannot be regarded as valid, admissible and enforceable in matrimonial proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
5. Are shares in companies acquired before marriage subject to division as matrimonial assets?
No, unless they have been substantially improved during marriage by the other party or by their joint efforts, as provided under section 76(5) of the Act. (Para 33 )
6. What is the standard of review in matrimonial appeals?
The Court of Appeal will not ordinarily intervene unless the High Court judge is plainly wrong, similar to civil appeals. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This appeal concerns the dissolution of marriage and the consequential issues of maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets.
[2] The Appellant, who was the petitioner in the High Court proceedings, is the wife.
[3] The 1st Respondent, who was the Respondent in the High Court proceedings, is the husband.
[4] The 2nd Respondent, who was the co-Respondent in the High Court proceedings, is the third party.
[5] We heard the appeal on 10 July 2025. Upon hearing the parties, we allowed the appeal in part and also allowed the cross-appeal, with each party bearing his or her own costs.
[6] We now set out the grounds of our decision, in particular on a salient point of law in respect of which we respectfully differed from the learned High Court Judge.
Background
[7] The Appellant and 1st Respondent were married and had their marriage registered on 12 July 1997. At the time, the Appellant was already a mother of a two-year-old daughter from a previous marriage. They later had five children of their own, all of whom have now attained the age of majority.
[8] Shortly after their marriage, the Appellant and 1st Respondent on 9 August 1997 entered into a post-nuptial agreement ("Agreement") which addressed provisions for spousal and child maintenance as well as adultery wherein, amongst others, it is provided that the 1st Respondent is permitted to maintain at least a mistress during the course of the marriage.
[9] The marriage between the Appellant and 1st Respondent eventually broke down irretrievably, and the Appellant on 15 January 2021 initiated divorce proceedings in the High Court, including against the 2nd Respondent for adultery.
In The High Court
[10] After trial, the learned High Court Judge ordered the marriage to be forthwith dissolved and made consequential orders therefrom.
[11] However, the Appellant and the Respondents were dissatisfied with the Decision and hence brought their respective appeal and cross-appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Findings Of This Court
[12] Although this appeal emanates from a matrimonial dispute trial, our function here is nonetheless that of review only, just like in a civil dispute trial. Thus, we will not ordinarily intervene unless the learned High Court Judge is plainly wrong; see Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors [2020] 6 MLRA 193; [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 8 AMR 227 (FC) and Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd v. Conlay Construction Sdn Bhd [2012] 2 MLRA 71; [2012] 4 MLJ 149 (CA).
[13] Before us, the parties basically re-hashed their respective arguments advanced in the High Court.
[14] Upon our review, we find that the learned High Court Judge's Decision is not plainly wrong, as reasoned in Her Ladyship's comprehensive grounds of judgment ("GOJ") reported in HLC v. PTL & Anor [2024] 4 MLRH 289; [2024] 10 MLJ 640; [2024] 5 CLJ 117 save for three matters.
[15] We will delve into the three matters here only.
[16] The first matter pertains to whether the Agreement is valid and binding as a matter of law.
[17] In this regard, the learned High Court Judge held as follows in the GOJ:
"[14] It was essential to acknowledge that marital agreements hold statutory recognition under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act"), specifically in s 56, which states:
Section 56 - Rules to provide for agreements to be referred to Court
Provisions may be made by rules of Court for enabling the parties to a marriage, or either of them, on application made either before or after the presentation of a petition for divorce, to refer to the Court any agreement or arrangement made or proposed to be made between them, being an agreement or arrangement which relates to, arises out of, or is connected with, the proceedings for divorce which are contemplated or, as the case may be, have begun, and for enabling the Court to express an opinion, should it think it desirable to do so, as to the reasonableness of the agreement or arrangement
