JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application filed by the Applicant (the husband) to set aside part of a consent order dated 5.7.2023, specifically to set aside the agreement transferring 50% of his EPF savings to the Respondent (the wife) pursuant to Section 53A of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991.

2. On 14.10.2025 this Court dismissed the Applicant's application. The reasons for the decision are set out below.

Brief Background Facts

3. The Applicant and the Respondent solemnised and registered their marriage on 1 February 2017 at the Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Negeri Selangor. Two children were born of the marriage, both sons, in 2018 and 2021 respectively.

4. The marriage gradually deteriorated due to irreconcilable differences and the parties eventually reached a mutual decision to bring the marriage to an end. In furtherance of that decision they jointly filed a divorce petition before the High Court at Shah Alam under Joint Petition No: BA33JP-707-06/2023.

5. On 5.7.2023 the High Court duly recorded a consent order dissolving the marriage and setting out the agreed terms between the parties in respect of custody, maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets. One of the express and unequivocal terms of that consent order provided for the transfer of 50% of the Applicant's EPF savings to the Respondent pursuant to section 53A of the EPF Act 1991. The transfer of funds was duly effected in October 2023.

6. Almost two years later the Applicant has filed the present Originating Summons seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the EPF monies transferred to the Respondent be returned. The basis for this application rests on the Applicant's assertion that the consent order was entered erroneously and in breach of the principals of natural justice.

Issues for Determination

7. The principle issues that arise for determination are:

(i) whether this Court has jurisdiction to revisit and vary the division of matrimonial assets after the divorce has been finalised by a consent order;

(ii) whether the consent order dated 5.7.2023 can be set aside on the grounds advanced by the Applicant;

(iii) whether the Applicant has established any legal basis to undo the transfer of EPF monies already effected.

Decision of the Court

8. At the outset, this Court finds it necessary to reaffirm the principle that is now firmly entrenched in Malaysian family law, namely that the division of matrimonial assets under section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 is intended to achieve finality at the point when the divorce is granted.

9. The Federal Court in Manokaram Subramaniam v. Ranjid Kaur Nata Singh [2008] 6 CLJ 209; [2009] 1 MLJ 21 made it abundantly clear that the power conferred by section 76 is to be exercised when the decree is granted and that such orders are intended to bring about a "clean break" between parties so that they may move forward with their lives without fear of fresh claims hanging over them long after the marriage has been dissolved.

10. This principle was reiterated in Satiavathi Kayambu v. Tamby Raja Perumal [2023] CLJU 231; [2023] 1 LNS 231 where the Federal Court once again emphasized that once a division of matrimonial assets is made at the time of divorce, the matter is final and not open to subsequent re-litigation. The Federal Court has explained as follows:

"[10] Section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act clearly empowers the Court to decide on the division of matrimonial assets at the time when the divorce is granted. This also provides finality to the issues concerning matrimonial assets, as explained by the Federal Court in Manokaram Subramaniam v. Ranjid Kaur Nata Singh [2008] 6 CLJ 209; [2009] 1 MLJ 21, where it was stated by Arifin Zakaria FCJ in the following passage: [23] The power of the court to order division of matrimonial assets is governed by s. 76 of the Act. Subsection (1) of s. 76 relates to assets acquired during the marriage by their joint effort, while sub-s (3) relates to ass