Dissolution of marriage

1. DISSOLUTION OF
MARRIAGE:
DIVORCE

2. LEARNING OUTCOMES
• To be able to evaluate the different methods by
which a divorce can be granted.
• To be able to apply the law on divorce to a
problem question.

3. INTRODUCTION
Pre-LRA marriages:
Section 4(1) & (2)
Post-LRA marriages:
section 8(b)
Decree nisi cf decree
absolute
Provisions
Part VI LRA
Section 47
Re Divorce Petitions Nos
18, 20 & 24 of 1983
[1984] 2 MLJ 158
3

4. • S48 LRA (1) (a) +(c) or (b) + (c): Extent of
power to grant relief.
• S49 LRA: Additional jurisdiction in
proceedings by a wife
JURISDICTION

5. Cases
 Mahon v Mahon [1971] 1 MLJ 287
 Melvin Lee Campbell v Amy anak Edward Sumek [1988] 2
MLJ 338 - Joint petition to divorce by mutual consent –
the husband failed to prove that he had abandoned his
domicile of origin and make Malaysia his domicile of
choice – the court have no jurisdiction to hear the
petition.
 Jayasakhty Kumaranayagam v Kandiah Chandrakumaran
[1996] 5 MLJ 612
Ang Geok Choo v Wong Tiew Yong [1997] 3 MLJ 467
Long Yan Fei v Pauls Baya [1999] 5 MLJ 491
Yeoh v Chew [2001] 4 MLJ 373
Neduncheliyan Balasubramaniam v Kohila A/P
Shanmugam [1997] 3 MLJ 768
Siah Teong Woei v Janet Traynor [2010] 2 MLJ 820
KKP v PCSP [2014] 8 MLJ 757

6. 6
Specified Period
Section 50 – no petition within 2 years from date of
marriage
(Note: section 106)
 Bowman v Bowman [1949] 2 All ER 127 – “cruelty again
by itself, if I fear, not exceptional, but if it is coupled
with aggravating circumstances, as, for instance,
drunkenness and neglect, or if it is exceptionally brutal
or dangerous to health, then, even if it does not
evidence exceptional depravity on the part of the
respondent, it does, at least, cause exceptional hardship
to the applicant…”
 C v C [1979] 1 All ER 556
 Brewer v Brewer [1964] 1 All ER 539
 Fay v Fay [1982] 2 All ER 922 - “’Exceptional hardship’
is not limited to past hardship but includes present and
future hardship and therefore the court may properly
take into account the hardship suffered by a young wife
in having to wait for the elapse of three years from the
date of marriage before petitioning for divorce.”
 Kiranjit Kaur Kalwant Singh v Chandok Narinderpal

7. Grounds
 Presumption of death: section 63
 Conversion to Islam: section 51
 Mutual consent: section 52
 Irretrievable breakdown: section 53

8. PRESUMPTION OF DEATH
Section 63
Note: section 108 Evidence Act 1950
R Muthu Thambi v K. Janagi [1955] 1 MLJ 47
8

9. CONVERSION TO ISLAM
• Amendment under the Law Reform (Marriage &
Divorce) (Amendment) Act 2017
• Section 51 ‘either party or both parties may
petition…’
• Section 51A
• [Note: section 106 is not applicable to this
ground]
9

10. MUTUAL CONSENT
Section 52
• Re Divorce Petitions Nos 18, 20 & 24 of 1983 [1984]
2 MLJ 158 - Mutual consent by the spouses to a
decree of dissolution does not entitle them to a
divorce. The parties who petition for a divorce on the
ground of mutual consent must prove the breakdown
of marriage.
• Sivanesan v Shymala [1986] 1 MLJ 400 - No
requirement to prove breakdown of marriage in S52
LRA.
• Re Goh Hoe Ling & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 137
[Note: section 106 is not applicable to this ground]
10

11. RRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE
Provisions
Section 53
Section 53(1)
Section 53(2)
Section 54
Section 54(1)
Section 54(1)(a)
Section 54(1)(b)
Section 54(1)(c)
Section 54(1)(d)
Section 54(2)
11

12. Requirements
• Definition Respondent has committed adultery and
the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with
Respondent
• Matrimonial offence: section 58
Test
Standard of proof
How to prove
Intolerable to live
Co-respondent
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN
OF MARRIAGE – 54(1)(A)

13. Cases
• Shanmugam v Pitchamany and Anor [1976] 2 MLJ 222
• Karen Cheong Yuen Yee v Phua Cheng Chuen [2004] 291 MLJU 1 - For
allegation of adultery, the standard of proof should be beyond
reasonable doubt.
• Wales v Wales and Cullen [1900] P 63
• Preston-Jones v Preston-Jones [1951] AC 391
• Jackson v Jackson and Pavan [1964] P 25
• Roper v Roper [1972] 3 All ER 668 - The petitioner must prove that not
only the R has committed adultery but in consequences of the adultery,
the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with R.
• Cleary v Cleary [1974] 1 All ER 498
• Tan Wat Yan v Kong Chiew Meng & Anor [1994] 3 CLJ 676 - once
adultery is proved, then it is a ground for divorce. if the court is
satisfied that the petitioner did not condone the act of adultery by the
R and it is impossible for the petitioner to continue living with the R
• Leow Kooi Wah v Ng Kok Seng Philip & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 852
• Kang Ka Heng v Ng Mooi Tee & Anor [2001] 3 MLJ 331

14. Examples on proof of section 54(1)(a):
• Mohan Raj St Pathmanathan v Prema Rani a/p
Kandiah Ponnapalam & Anor [2005] 4 MLJ 444
• Lim Siaw Ying v Wong Seng & Anor [2009] 4 MLJ
409
• Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam v Kanasingam
a/l Kandiah [2012] 7 MLJ 315
• Yew Yin Lai v Teo Meng Hai & Anor [2013] 8 MLJ
787
• Dr. Gurmail a/p Sadhu Singh v Dr. Teh Seong
Peng & Anor [2014] 11 MLJ 843 14
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN
OF MARRIAGE – 54(1)(A)

15. Requirement
Behaviour Test
English Cases
• Livingston-Stallard v Livingston-Stallard [1974] 2 All ER 766 -
“would any right-thinking person come to the conclusion that
this husband has behaved in such a way that his wife cannot
reasonably be expected to live with him, taking into account
the whole world of circumstances and the characters and
personalities of the parties?”
• Ash v Ash [1972] 1 All ER 582 - Behavior of both parties must
be taken into account
• Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 1 All ER 587
• Thurlow v Thurlow [1975] 2 All ER 979
• O’Neill v O’Neill [1975] 3 All ER 289
• Birch v Birch [1992] 1 FLR 564
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF
MARRIAGE – 54(1)(B)

16. MY Cases
• Wong Siew Fong v Wong Siew Fong [1964] MLJ 37
• Vethaguru v Sivagnanachelvi [1981] 2 MLJ 204
• Theresa Tek v Luke Lim [1981] 2 MLJ 205
• Savinder Kaur v Tharma Singh [1985] 1 MLJ 273
• Joseph Jeganathan v Rosaline Joseph [1989] 3 MLJ 106 - KC
Vohrah J referred to the test formulated by Dunn J in the case of
Livingstone Stallard, in assessing what is ‘reasonable’ in
context of section 54(1)(b) of LRA
• Hariram Jayaram v Saraswathy Rajahram [1990] 1 MLJ 114 -
adopted the decision in Katz v Katz and Pheasant v Pheasant
• Bhanu Sekaramani v Nagamma [1991] 3 MLJ 34
• Tan Keok Yin v Cheah Saw Hong [1991] 2 MLJ 266
• Lee Hock Teong v Ching Suet Yeen [2019] MLJU 1576 Khoo
Boon Chin v Alice Tan Ling Mei [2019] MLJU 1451

17. Definition
Time period – 2 years before presentation of petition
Simple and Constructive desertion
Requirement
• De facto separation
• Animus deserendi
• No consent
• No reasonable cause/excuse
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN
OF MARRIAGE – 54(1)(C)

18. Cases
 Pulford v Pulford [1923] P 18 - The desertion is not withdrawal
from a place, but from a state of things. The test is whether the
parties live as two separate units or two separate households or as
One?
 Hopes v Hopes [1948] 2 All ER 920
 Naylor v Naylor [1961] 2 All ER 129
 Miller v Miller [1948] MLJ 183
 Saigal v Saigal [1964] MLJ 429
 Pardy v Pardy [1939] P 302
 Mummery v Mummery [1942] P 107
 B v P [1998] 5 MLJ 787
 Goh Soo Toon v Yuen Yoke Chee [1950] MLJ 96
 Lang v Lang [1954] 3 WLR 762
 Chua Seok Choo v Ooi Chuan Lok [1968] 1 MLJ 282 - a mere wish
or intention that the other spouse should leave was insufficient by
itself to constitute desertion. The wish or intention must be
accompanied by conduct which was of a grave and weighty
character and which the court could properly regard as equivalent
to expulsion in fact.

19. Definition
Time period – 2 years before presentation of petition
Cases
• Mouncer v Mouncer [1972] 1 All ER 289
• Pheasant v Pheasant [1972] 1 All ER 587
• Santos v Santos [1972] 2 All ER 246 - to establish that a
husband and wife have lived apart mere physical separation is
insufficient if both the parties still recognise the marriage as
subsisting.
• Hoe Gan Tai v Fong Chee Yan [ [1970] 1 MLJ 75
• Bhanu Sekaramani v Nagamma [1991] 3 MLJ 34
• Soo Lina v Ngu Chu Chiong [1994] 2 MLJ 145 - 2 years of
separation is only prima facie proof of the breakdown of the
marriage. It is rebuttable when the R can show that the 2 years’
separation per se does not cause or lead to the breakdown of
IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN
OF MARRIAGE – 54(1)(D)

20. IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF
MARRIAGE
Requirements under sections 53(2) and 54(2)
Cases:
 Blunt v Blunt [1943] AC 517
 Kathi Rasen v Kathi Rasen [1960] MLJ 57
 Wong Siew Fong [1964] MLJ 37
 Mathias v Mathias [1972] 3 All ER 1
 Tan Keok Yin v Cheah Saw Hong [1991] 2 MLJ 266 -
The petitioner would have only proved prima facie
that the marriage had irretrievably broken down (if R
not contesting); The court further need to consider
all the circumstances including the conduct of the
parties and the interests of the children of the
marriage (in pursuant to sec 54(2)-if R contesting
the petition and alleged that the marriage had not
20

21. READINGS
Daleleer Kaur Randawar, Nur Ezan Rahmat and
Akbar Kamarudin @ Abdul Shukor, Family Law
in Malaysia (Lexis Nexis 2018) Chapter 8
Kamala M.G. Pillai, Family Law in Malaysia,
(LexisNexis 2009), Chapter 6
Mimi Kamariah Majid, Family Law in Malaysia
(Malayan Law Journal 1999), Chapter 9
Dr. Zaleha Kamaruddin, Divorce Laws in
Malaysia (Civil and Shariah) (Malayan Law
Journal, 2005) Chapter 2