CHOW KHOON CHOONG v LOI HOI WAI PIHAK KETIGA LIOU WING SAN

Case Significance

Illustrates the treatment of retirement savings on divorce: EPF funds accumulated during the marriage are divisible matrimonial assets under section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, but the non-contributing spouse's share may be moderated to protect the contributor's future security.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, sitting in its family division, resolves cross-petitions for divorce together with the ancillary questions of maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets. The petitioner husband presented a petition for divorce on the grounds in section 54(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 — that the respondent wife had behaved in a way such that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her, that she had deserted him for a continuous period of at least two years, and that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of two years. The respondent wife cross-petitioned for divorce and sought monthly maintenance for the child and for herself, an equal division of all matrimonial assets, and damages from the party cited, a third party named in the proceedings.

The court worked through the statutory framework for dissolving the marriage and for the just division of matrimonial assets under section 76 of the Act, addressing in particular how the husband's Employees Provident Fund (EPF) savings should be treated. It accepted that EPF funds accumulated during the marriage form part of the matrimonial assets within section 76, but reasoned that such funds are not surplus wealth; they are a financial reserve built over years of employment that must be preserved to sustain the husband through retirement.

Balancing those considerations, the court ordered that the respondent wife be entitled to thirty per cent of the amount standing in the husband's EPF account as at the date the decree nisi is made absolute, with the EPF Board to give effect to the order, and, both counsel having so submitted, directed that each party bear its own costs. The judgment illustrates how a court divides retirement savings as a matrimonial asset — recognising them as divisible under section 76 while moderating the share to protect the contributing spouse's future security.