ONG MING THONG v CHONG PHAIK AI

ka-33-178-08-2019 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 4 May 2025 • KA-33-178-08/2019 • 15 min read
7 cases cited (0 SG, 7 foreign)

Outcome

Hartanah yang ada bahagian milik ibu Pempetisyen Suami – tuntutan Responden Isteri ditolak. viii.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ka-33-178-08-2019). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

A comprehensive worked example of the ancillary relief accompanying a divorce under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 — dissolution on irretrievable breakdown, child and spousal maintenance, and the division of matrimonial property including a trust of land for the child.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Alor Setar disposes of a divorce petition presented by the husband against the wife under sections 53 and 54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, the parties having married in 2005. Beyond the dissolution of the marriage, the petition brought into issue the custody of the child, maintenance for the wife and child, and the division of matrimonial property (harta sepencarian). After lengthy pleadings, supplementary affidavits, oral evidence and written submissions, the court heard the matter over three trial days in October 2024 and delivered its decision on 5 May 2025.

On the marriage itself, the court was satisfied that it had broken down irretrievably and granted the petition, ordering a decree nisi to be made absolute after three months. On maintenance, it ordered child maintenance of RM3,000 per month until the completion of the child's tertiary education, and provided for the wife's maintenance during the proceedings at RM5,000 per month, giving credit for a sum of RM1,500 already paid. On the division of matrimonial property, the court distributed the various assets between the parties: certain properties were transferred to the wife, others to the husband, portions held jointly were consolidated in one party or the other, one parcel of vacant land was placed in trust for the child until the age of 21 or the discharge of the bank loan (whichever was earlier), and the wife's claim over a property in which the husband's mother had an interest was dismissed. The husband was ordered to pay costs of RM15,000 to the wife. Both parties, dissatisfied, filed appeals. In fixing maintenance the court took into account the evidence of the husband's income and observed that the power to order maintenance can extend even beyond the dissolution of the marriage, so that the wife's entitlement was not extinguished merely by the grant of the decree. The judgment is a comprehensive worked example of the ancillary relief that accompanies a divorce — dissolution, custody, maintenance and the equitable division of matrimonial assets — and of the way a court tailors property orders to the needs of the family, including the children.

On what basis was the divorce granted, and what maintenance was ordered?

The court found the marriage had broken down irretrievably and granted the husband's petition under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ordering a decree nisi to be made absolute after three months. It ordered child maintenance of RM3,000 per month until the completion of the child's tertiary education and provided for the wife's maintenance during the proceedings at RM5,000 per month, crediting RM1,500 already paid.

How was the matrimonial property divided?

The court distributed the assets between the parties — transferring certain properties to the wife and others to the husband, consolidating jointly held portions, placing one parcel of vacant land in trust for the child until age 21 or discharge of the bank loan (whichever was earlier), and dismissing the wife's claim over a property in which the husband's mother had an interest. The husband was ordered to pay RM15,000 in costs, and both parties appealed.

Cases Cited (7)

MY (7)
[1996] 3 MLJ 321 [1997] 1 MLJ 109 [1998] 3 MLJ 228 [2001] 2 MLJ 576 [2005] 3 MLJ 865 [2012] 9 CLJ 305 [2024] 9 CLJ 599

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ka-33-178-08-2019)