URSZULA LIDIA THIAGARASAN v PAUL ANDRE BELLAVANCE

Case Significance

Clarifies that under section 3 of the Married Women and Children (Maintenance) Act 1950 a spouse need not prove actual expenditure to obtain maintenance, which is assessed in proportion to the payer's means and reasonable basic needs, with section 6 available to vary the order if circumstances change.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal against a Magistrate's refusal of a wife's claim for maintenance under section 3 of the Married Women and Children (Maintenance) Act 1950, and it clarifies that a claimant need not prove actual expenditure before a maintenance order can be made. The appellant, a permanent resident of Malaysia, and the respondent, a Canadian national holding a Malaysia My Second Home visa, were married in 2022. From June 2024 they had lived separately, the appellant having left the matrimonial home, and the respondent offered only RM1,500 a month for a year, which the appellant said was inadequate. She claimed RM5,500 a month covering utilities, food, daily living, fuel, tolls, medical needs and rent, contending that the respondent could afford it given his income as a consultant, including engagements abroad said to generate substantial sums and training sessions for large companies. The Magistrate dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellant had produced only estimates and had not proved her actual expenses, and that she had not been ordered to leave the matrimonial home. On appeal, the court held that section 3 requires maintenance to be ordered in proportion to the means of the person liable, as the court sees reasonable, and that a claimant is not required in law to prove actual expenditure before an order can be made; section 6 in any event allows a later variation if circumstances change. Finding that the appellant's claimed heads of expenditure were reasonable and not excessive, but that the claim had to be tempered by reference to basic needs, the court allowed most of it while reducing the rent component (the appellant living with a child) and disallowing a fixed monthly medical allowance that had not been particularised. Holding that the Magistrate had made a manifest error, the court set aside the Magistrate's order, allowed the appeal, and ordered the respondent to pay maintenance of RM4,019 per month from November 2024, with each party to bear its own costs.