SARASWATHY A/P PERUMAL v N ANNADURAI A/L NARAYANASAMY

Case Significance

Confirms that both parents bear an equal responsibility for a child's maintenance: the court fixes a reasonable monthly sum, apportions it equally between the parents, and defines its duration to run until the child reaches 18 or completes a first university degree, whichever is later.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, sitting in its family division, concerns a divorce petition and the assessment of maintenance for the child of the marriage, and it records how the court proceeded when the husband did not properly engage with the proceedings. The petitioner wife had filed an amended divorce petition, relying on the grounds in sections 54(1)(b) and 54(1)(d) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, and seeking ancillary relief including maintenance for the child. The decision followed six court-appointed dates and a number of attempted mediation sessions to resolve the impasse between the parties. On the final date, some nine months after the petition was filed, the husband admitted in open court that he had not appointed a lawyer to represent him and had not filed any reply or cross-petition.

Turning to child maintenance, the court assessed what a reasonable and fair monthly sum would be to maintain the child, arriving at a range of RM2,000 to RM2,500 per month. It emphasised that both parents ought to share an equal responsibility for the child's wellbeing. Taking RM2,000 as the minimum figure on that scale and apportioning the obligation equally between the two parents, it held that each parent should contribute RM1,000 towards the child's maintenance.

The court ordered the husband to pay RM1,000 per month, considering that sum fair and proportionate, with the obligation to commence from the date the divorce petition was filed and to continue until the child reaches 18 years of age or completes her first university degree, whichever is later. In fixing the commencement point at the date of filing and extending the endpoint to the completion of a first degree, the court ensured that the maintenance covered the whole period of the child's dependency, including the years of tertiary study, rather than ceasing automatically at the age of majority. The judgment illustrates the principle that both parents bear an equal responsibility for a child's maintenance, and shows the court fixing a proportionate monthly sum and defining its duration to cover the child's education through to the end of a first degree.