NARAYANI A/P MARIAPPEN v 1. ) PUVANESVARAN A/L ARIKRISHNAN 2. ) JOTHI LETCHMEY A/P NOOKARAJOO

ka-33-86-12-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 15 October 2025 • KA-33-86-12/2023 • 37 min read

9 cases cited (0 SG, 9 foreign)

Catchwords

FAMILY LAW: Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Adultery and cruelty – Allegation that husband committed adultery with co-respondent – Evidence – Intimate messages and photographs – Whether adultery proved on balance of probabilities – Cruelty – Physical assault and domestic violence – Withdrawal of police report – Whether withdrawal negated fact of cruelty – Constructive desertion – Husband locking wife and child out of matrimonial home – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 53 & 54 FAMILY LAW: Children – Access – Application for overnight access by father – Factors to consider – Welfare of child – Child traumatized by father’s past violence and aggression – Whether overnight access appropriate – Maintenance – Assessment – Husband failing to produce documentary evidence of income – Duty to make full and frank disclosure – Adverse inference – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 88, 92 & 93 FAMILY LAW: Matrimonial property – Division – Matrimonial home registered in husband's sole name – Allegation that property held in trust for parents – Absence of documentary proof regarding parents' contribution – Wife’s contribution – Direct financial contribution via EPF withdrawals for loan instalments – Non-financial contribution to welfare of family – Entitlement to equal division – EPF contributions – Whether matrimonial asset subject to division – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 76 – Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, s. 53A FAMILY LAW: Damages – Adultery – Claim against co-respondent – Measure of damages – Domestic violence – Personal injuries – Whether court empowered to award general damages for assault within divorce proceedings – Principles applicable – Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 58 EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Non-production of material documents – Husband claiming low income but failing to produce salary slips or bank statements – Husband claiming house paid for by parents but failing to produce transaction records – Presumption that evidence if produced would be unfavourable – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)

Practice Areas

Family Law Evidence Damages Employment & Industrial Relations

Judges (1)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee Delivered

Counsel (4)

M. S. Nizam & Co Firm Max Yee & Ang Firm Ang Jun Jia Counsel Petitioner Muhammad Irham Redzuan Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

Jothi Letchmey a/p Nookarajoo Respondent Narayani a/p Mariappen Petitioner Puvanesvaran a/l Arikrishnan Respondent

Case Significance

A worked example of contested divorce relief under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, notable for treating a withdrawn police report as not negating proven cruelty, drawing an adverse inference against a spouse who hides income, and combining equal division of the matrimonial home with an EPF split and damages for both domestic violence and adultery.

This High Court decision at Alor Star is a contested divorce judgment after trial, dealing with the grounds for dissolution, ancillary relief and damages, under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The names of all those involved were anonymised by the court to protect their privacy. The petitioner sought dissolution of a marriage of some thirteen years on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, alleging cruelty and adultery. She said that the first respondent, her husband, had been physically and verbally abusive over many years — including choking, slapping and scalding — that he had committed adultery with the second respondent, and that he had ultimately changed the padlocks on the matrimonial home, forcing her and their child to seek shelter at a temple. The court examined the evidence of cruelty, including a Magistrate's Court charge for voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the Penal Code, and held that the withdrawal of a police report did not negate the fact of cruelty; it found adultery proved on the balance of probabilities from intimate messages and photographs. On the husband's claimed inability to pay maintenance, the court drew an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 from his failure to make full and frank disclosure of his income. The court granted the petition and made a suite of consequential orders: custody arrangements and maintenance for the child, spousal maintenance of RM300 per month, a declaration that the matrimonial home was a matrimonial asset to be sold in the open market with net proceeds divided equally (50:50), interim exclusive possession to the petitioner and child, a transfer of 50% of the husband's EPF savings under section 53A of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, general damages for domestic violence to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar, damages for adultery against the second respondent under section 58 of the Act, and costs against the first respondent.

How did the court treat the withdrawal of the police report in assessing cruelty?

The court held that the withdrawal of the police report did not negate the fact of cruelty; it found the husband's physical violence and unreasonable behaviour established, supported in part by an earlier Magistrate's Court charge under section 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt.

What did the court do about the husband's claimed lack of income?

It drew an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 from the husband's failure to produce documentary evidence of his income and to make full and frank disclosure, and assessed maintenance accordingly rather than accepting a claimed incapacity to pay.

What financial orders did the court make?

Among other orders, spousal maintenance of RM300 per month, a declaration that the matrimonial home was a matrimonial asset to be sold with net proceeds divided equally, a transfer of 50% of the husband's EPF savings under section 53A of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, general damages for domestic violence to be assessed, and damages for adultery against the second respondent under section 58 of the Act.