Back
JUDGMENT
Facts Of The Case
[1] Both appellants, prior to their marriage and up to the time of the filing of this application, were residing in Malacca at an address known as No 1, Jalan TTP2, Taman Tambak Paya Permai, 75460 Air Molek, Melaka.
[2] They have decided to get married in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur as the first applicant was then a married man and was intent not to let the news of the marriage reaching his first wife. Upon the evidence adduced, the first applicant was a man of means financially and physically, being a contractor earning an income of some RM9,000 a month.
[3] The second applicant has never married before. On 16 September 2000, between 10:00 am and 11:00 am, the parties were married at a double-storey shop house in the Federal Territory, Kuala Lumpur. A week later, they received their Certificate of Marriage, since marked as exh P1. At the said shop house, a jurunikah and two witnesses, not personally known to the applicants but whose character and personality did not appear to be questionable to the applicants, were made available for the solemnization.
[4] The marriage was solemnized upon a maskahwin of RM80 in cash, and the applicants, the wali and the witnesses were present when solemnization was effectuated.
[5] For the first five years of their marriage, the parties harboured no doubt as to the veracity of their marriage. Indeed, during the period, four children had been born to them. They also had encountered no problem in obtaining the Birth Certificate for their respective children by using the above Certificate of Marriage (Exhibit P1). The falsity of the Certificate of Marriage, however, dawned upon them in 2005 when they were unable to obtain the Birth Certificate for their fourth child. They then came before this court to apply for an order that their marriage is valid in law and for it to be registered pursuant to the
[6] In their evidence, the first and second applicants averred that they have gone to a place, viz a two-storey shop lot somewhere in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Their intention of going there was solely to enable the first applicant to take a second wife and marry the second applicant. The first applicant was already married and had a few children. It was evident that, to facilitate the said marriage, the second applicant had brought along a wali, ie, in the person of her own father. Before the applicants were solemnized by the Imam, a man whom they were not quite acquainted with, the second applicant's father had given his consent for the Imam to be his wali, for the purpose of offering his daughter in marriage. Upon such representation being made by the father/wali, the latter then pronounced the solemnization thus: "Upon the representation given me by the wali, I hereby offer Mercy Utuh in marriage to Haji Mahammad Hamed on a maskahwin of RM80 cash".
[7] Thereupon, the groom, namely the first applicant, replied "I accept Mercy Utuh in marriage on a maskahwin of RM80 cash". The bride, namely the second applicant did receive the RM80 maskahwin in question from the groom. According to the applicants' evidence further, two witnesses who were brought by the Imam, namely Mahuri Sahid and Nasrun Bardu respectively, stood witness for their marriage.
[8] Counsel for the applicants had produced the father of the second applicant as a witness. According to this witness, he had observed and witnessed the marriage ceremony, and had also heard the words of Ijab (offer) and Qabul (acceptance) being therein uttered by the first applicant. Likewise, he also saw the two witnesses aforesaid at the ceremony, endorsing the marriage as valid.
[9] The applicants had also called a second witness for this trial, namely the second applicant's younger sister. This witness testified that she was present at the solemnization and witnessed the marriage rites thus conducted thereat.
[10] It is the court's view that the
