Srissarmila a/p Veeramuthu v Thienesh a/l Rajendhran

pa-33-332-08-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 21 August 2025 • PA-33-332-08/2023

Catchwords

Crucial to note that the conduct of PW in filing the petition for nullity merely three months into the marriage, well before the expiration of the two-year period stipulated under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, clearly demonstrates that she did not afford RH a reasonable opportunity to consummate the marriage. Furthermore, had the parties remained married for two years, Section 106 of the LRA 1976 would have required reference to a conciliatory body in an effort to reconcile the parties. However, the early filing of nullity proceedings precluded any such attempt at reconciliation, as no such requirement exists in nullity proceedings.

Practice Areas

Crucial to note that the conduct of PW in filing the petition for nullity merely three months into the marriage, well before the expiration of the two-year period stipulated under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, clearly demonstrates that she did not afford RH a reasonable opportunity to consummate the marriage. Furthermore, had the parties remained married for two years, Section 106 of the LRA 1976 would have required reference to a conciliatory body in an effort to reconcile the parties. However, the early filing of nullity proceedings precluded any such attempt at reconciliation, as no such requirement exists in nullity proceedings.

Judges (1)

Azizan bin Md. Arshad Delivered

Parties (2)

Srissarmila a/p Veeramuthu Petitioner Thienesh a/l Rajendhran Respondent

Case Significance

Srissarmila a/p Veeramuthu v Thienesh a/l Rajendhran is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 21, 2025 (citation: pa-33-332-08-2023). The case was decided by Azizan bin Md. Arshad.

What was the outcome of Srissarmila a/p Veeramuthu v Thienesh a/l Rajendhran?

Srissarmila a/p Veeramuthu v Thienesh a/l Rajendhran is a High Court decision dated August 21, 2025. The case was heard by Azizan bin Md. Arshad. See the full judgment for details.