Family Law
21 cases · April 2018 to November 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 18
20 25
2018–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Children — Adoption — Whether making of adoption order entitled adopted child to be registered as Malaysian citizen as of right and/or by operation of law — Federal Constitution, art 14(1)(b) — no retrospective effect of legitimacy. 1 Custody — Interim custody, care and control — Child of tender years — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 s 88(3) — Rebuttable presumption in favour of mother for child below seven — Whether presumption rebutted — Whether father’s allegations of mother’s lifestyle sufficient — Welfare of child paramount — Access and maintenance — Removal of child from jurisdiction — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 88(3) & 93 — Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, r.76 — Rules of Court 2012, O.1A, O.7 & O.92 r.4 1 Divorce; Dissolution of marriage; Matrimonial proceedings; Cross-petition 1 Application by wife to vary consent order — Whether there had been material change in circumstances to justify allowing this Application — Whether a consent order may be varied — Whether the Children should be interviewed. 1 Divorce — Breakdown of marriage — Adultery — Unreasonable behaviour — Damages against Co-Respondent — Whether Wife had proved allegations of adultery between Husband and Co-Respondent — Evaluation of evidence adduced by wife to prove adultery — Whether Husband had established that it was Wife’s unreasonable behaviour that caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage 1 Divorce — Spousal maintenance — Whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to Wife — Whether Wife had satisfied the ‘means and needs’ test 1 Divorce — Children — Guardianship, care, custody, control, maintenance — Whether Wife and Husband should be awarded joint guardianship and custody pertaining to the Children — Whether Husband obligated to pay child maintenance 1 Divorce — Matrimonial assets — Whether Wife and Husband were entitled to the division of matrimonial assets as pleaded — Extent of each other’s contribution 1 Divorce — Case Management — Whether the Court can strike out Divorce Petition and allow the Respondent’s Cross Petition due to the failure of the Appellant to comply with directives including filing pre-trial documents by deadline 1 Matrimonial proceedings — Maintenance — Interim maintenance — Scope and purpose — Limited to immediate living needs of spouse — Assessment based on means and needs of parties — Court’s discretion under section 77 and 78 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 — Variation of maintenance order under section 83 — Grounds: misrepresentation, mistake of fact, material change in circumstances — Innocent misrepresentation — Pleadings and relief sought — Use of interim maintenance for legal fees — No statutory provision for inclusion of legal or professional expenses — Comparative reference to foreign jurisprudence (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550; UFU (M.W) v UFV [2017] SGHCF 23) — Principle of adherence to pleadings — Appealable error for improper variation — Costs 1 Child maintenance — Whether Husband was obligated to pay spousal/ child maintenance — Whether Wife should have sole guardianship and sole custody of the Children — Whether Husband should be granted only supervised access to the Children — Whether necessary to issue prohibition order restraining the Respondent from physically approaching Wife or from being in the same room or residence with her. 1 Divorce — Joint petition — Decree nisi obtained in June 2000 — Neither petitioners made the decree nisi absolute — Petitioner-husband made it absolute only in January 2025 — Petitioner-Husband now applied to back date decree absolute to August 2000 — Whether Court empowered to backdate decree absolute — Legal implications of not making a decree nisi absolute — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act 1976 sections 61, 62, 69, 75 1 Discovery — Application for an order of the Court for discovery — Relevance in the context of discovery — Principles of law applicable to discovery proceedings — Order 24 Rules of the Court 2012 — Whether the Respondent husband had shown sufficient grounds to compel further discovery from the Petitioner wife — Whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary to determine matrimonial assets and financial capacity of Petitioner wife 1 Application to vary — Whether Husband had demonstrated material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a reduction of payments he was required to make to the Wife pursuant to the Decree Nisi — Whether Husband's remarriage and his ensuing financial obligations towards his new family constituted grounds for a variation of the spousal maintenance payable to the Wife 1 Divorce — Spousal maintenance — Whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to Wife — Whether Wife had estabslihed that Husband had caused irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Whether Wife had satisfied ‘means and needs’ test to justify amount of spousal maintenance sought — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 — sections 77, 78 1 Divorce — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Cause of — Whether Wife’s allegations of adultery between the Petitioner and Party-Cited had been established — Whether Wife had found such adultery, if at all, intolerable — Whether Wife had established that it was Husband’s unreasonable behaviour that had caused irretrievable breakdown of the marriage — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 sections 53, 54, 58(3) — Women’s Charter 1961 (Singapore), section 95(5) 1 Divorce — Guardianship, custody, care and control of child and child maintenance — Whether the Husband and Wife should be granted joint guardianship and joint custody — Whether sole custody, care, and control should be awarded to the Wife — What form of access the Husband should have — Whether Husband obligated to pay child maintenance — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 — sections 88, 92, 93 — Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 — sections 3 and 5 1 Divorce — Division of matrimonial assets — Whether both Husband and Wife entitled to a division of those assets based on their respective claimed contributions — Whether contributions of each party established — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 — section 76 1 Petition for Judicial separation — Application for interim orders — Whether this Court had jurisdiction to hear the Petition for judicial separation and application for interim orders — Whether Petitioner had fulfilled requirement of residence — Whether the Petitioner was a resident of Malaysia at the time of filing the Judicial Separation Petition and this Application — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 49 and 49 1 Guardianship and custody — Whether Defendant father should have joint guardianship and joint custody of Plaintiff who is his illegitimate child — Whether Defendant had ever maintained a relationship with the Plaintiff — Whether joint guardianship and joint custody suitable in the present case — Whether Defendant should be granted access or visitation rights 1
+ 14 more
Children — Adoption — Whether making of adoption order entitled adopted child to be registered as Malaysian citizen as of right and/or by operation of law — Federal Constitution, art 14(1)(b) — no retrospective effect of legitimacy. 1 case
Custody — Interim custody, care and control — Child of tender years — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 s 88(3) — Rebuttable presumption in favour of mother for child below seven — Whether presumption rebutted — Whether father’s allegations of mother’s lifestyle sufficient — Welfare of child paramount — Access and maintenance — Removal of child from jurisdiction — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss 88(3) & 93 — Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, r.76 — Rules of Court 2012, O.1A, O.7 & O.92 r.4 1 case
Divorce; Dissolution of marriage; Matrimonial proceedings; Cross-petition 1 case
Application by wife to vary consent order — Whether there had been material change in circumstances to justify allowing this Application — Whether a consent order may be varied — Whether the Children should be interviewed. 1 case
Divorce — Breakdown of marriage — Adultery — Unreasonable behaviour — Damages against Co-Respondent — Whether Wife had proved allegations of adultery between Husband and Co-Respondent — Evaluation of evidence adduced by wife to prove adultery — Whether Husband had established that it was Wife’s unreasonable behaviour that caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage 1 case
Divorce — Spousal maintenance — Whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to Wife — Whether Wife had satisfied the ‘means and needs’ test 1 case
Divorce — Children — Guardianship, care, custody, control, maintenance — Whether Wife and Husband should be awarded joint guardianship and custody pertaining to the Children — Whether Husband obligated to pay child maintenance 1 case
Divorce — Matrimonial assets — Whether Wife and Husband were entitled to the division of matrimonial assets as pleaded — Extent of each other’s contribution 1 case
Divorce — Case Management — Whether the Court can strike out Divorce Petition and allow the Respondent’s Cross Petition due to the failure of the Appellant to comply with directives including filing pre-trial documents by deadline 1 case
Matrimonial proceedings — Maintenance — Interim maintenance — Scope and purpose — Limited to immediate living needs of spouse — Assessment based on means and needs of parties — Court’s discretion under section 77 and 78 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 — Variation of maintenance order under section 83 — Grounds: misrepresentation, mistake of fact, material change in circumstances — Innocent misrepresentation — Pleadings and relief sought — Use of interim maintenance for legal fees — No statutory provision for inclusion of legal or professional expenses — Comparative reference to foreign jurisprudence (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZHC 550; UFU (M.W) v UFV [2017] SGHCF 23) — Principle of adherence to pleadings — Appealable error for improper variation — Costs 1 case
Child maintenance — Whether Husband was obligated to pay spousal/ child maintenance — Whether Wife should have sole guardianship and sole custody of the Children — Whether Husband should be granted only supervised access to the Children — Whether necessary to issue prohibition order restraining the Respondent from physically approaching Wife or from being in the same room or residence with her. 1 case
Divorce — Joint petition — Decree nisi obtained in June 2000 — Neither petitioners made the decree nisi absolute — Petitioner-husband made it absolute only in January 2025 — Petitioner-Husband now applied to back date decree absolute to August 2000 — Whether Court empowered to backdate decree absolute — Legal implications of not making a decree nisi absolute — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act 1976 sections 61, 62, 69, 75 1 case
Discovery — Application for an order of the Court for discovery — Relevance in the context of discovery — Principles of law applicable to discovery proceedings — Order 24 Rules of the Court 2012 — Whether the Respondent husband had shown sufficient grounds to compel further discovery from the Petitioner wife — Whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary to determine matrimonial assets and financial capacity of Petitioner wife 1 case
Application to vary — Whether Husband had demonstrated material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a reduction of payments he was required to make to the Wife pursuant to the Decree Nisi — Whether Husband's remarriage and his ensuing financial obligations towards his new family constituted grounds for a variation of the spousal maintenance payable to the Wife 1 case
Divorce — Spousal maintenance — Whether spousal maintenance should be awarded to Wife — Whether Wife had estabslihed that Husband had caused irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Whether Wife had satisfied ‘means and needs’ test to justify amount of spousal maintenance sought — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 — sections 77, 78 1 case
Divorce — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Cause of — Whether Wife’s allegations of adultery between the Petitioner and Party-Cited had been established — Whether Wife had found such adultery, if at all, intolerable — Whether Wife had established that it was Husband’s unreasonable behaviour that had caused irretrievable breakdown of the marriage — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 sections 53, 54, 58(3) — Women’s Charter 1961 (Singapore), section 95(5) 1 case
Divorce — Guardianship, custody, care and control of child and child maintenance — Whether the Husband and Wife should be granted joint guardianship and joint custody — Whether sole custody, care, and control should be awarded to the Wife — What form of access the Husband should have — Whether Husband obligated to pay child maintenance — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 — sections 88, 92, 93 — Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 — sections 3 and 5 1 case
Divorce — Division of matrimonial assets — Whether both Husband and Wife entitled to a division of those assets based on their respective claimed contributions — Whether contributions of each party established — Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 — section 76 1 case
Petition for Judicial separation — Application for interim orders — Whether this Court had jurisdiction to hear the Petition for judicial separation and application for interim orders — Whether Petitioner had fulfilled requirement of residence — Whether the Petitioner was a resident of Malaysia at the time of filing the Judicial Separation Petition and this Application — Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 sections 49 and 49 1 case
Guardianship and custody — Whether Defendant father should have joint guardianship and joint custody of Plaintiff who is his illegitimate child — Whether Defendant had ever maintained a relationship with the Plaintiff — Whether joint guardianship and joint custody suitable in the present case — Whether Defendant should be granted access or visitation rights 1 case
Child maintenance — Claim made by Plaintiff child through her litigation representation who is her mother — Whether arrears justified — Whether there was delay in claiming arrears — Whether arrears was in actual fact to offset a sum owed by Plaintiff's mother to the Defendant 1 case
Child maintenance — Claim made by Plaintiff child through her litigation representation who is her mother — Whether monthly amount of child maintenance justified — Whether sum claimed reasonable — Whether Defendant's excuse of financial inability acceptable 1 case
Divorce — Whether the Court can allow the Divorce Petition due to the failure of the Appellant to comply with directives including filing the Answer to the Petition by court deadline 1 case
Application to anonymise parties — Importance of anonymising all parties in matrimonial disputes due to sensitive and private matters — Whether Application to anonymise ought to be disallowed on basis that Children are over 18 years old — Whether Application to anonymise ought to be disallowed in the name public interest — Distinction between public interest and public's interest — Whether Respondent’s position as public servant warranted such refusal of anonymity — Whether refusal to anonymise may hinder prospects of settlement — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 section 15. 1 case
Application to intervene by Proposed Intervener on behalf Co-respondent's child born out of wedlock — Application to intervene based on promises made by Respondent to provide for child — Whether child's pecuniary and proprietary interest would be affected — Whether Proposed Intervener's interest would be affected by these matrimonial proceedings — Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 rule 83 — Rules of Court 2012 order 15 rule 6 1 case
Dispute over control of frozen embryos — Whether Applicant was entitled to sole custody, care and control of the remaining two frozen embryos — Whether embryos have legal personhood — Whether intention of Parties was ascertained — Whether consent of Parties was required for future use of embryos — Whether the right to procreate prevailed over the right not to be a parent — Federal Constitution article 5 1 case
Child born via IVF after couple had divorced — Whether father of child was obligated to maintain her — Whether lump-sum was permitted for child maintenance — Whether Applicant had justified lump-sum child maintenance of MYR1,440,000 or monthly child maintenance of MYR7,500 — Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 1 case
Key Statutes
New Zealand Act
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
jb-24ncvc-308-06-2024
1. ) LIM YONG KIM 2. ) LEONG SIEW CHAN (P) 3. ) LIM YONG KIM (WAKIL LITIGASI KEPADA LIM WEI QI BELUM DEWASA) v 1. ) Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri 2. ) PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA MALAYSIA
17 November 2025
MYHC
ta-24f-3-07-2025
MISS ONUMA SATTATAM v SOON PENG HWA
17 November 2025
MYHC
ka-33-77-10-2022
TAN SHEE PENG v LEE BEE AI
26 July 2025
MYHC
wa-33jp-751-05-2023
1. ) Subramaniam A/l Rajagopal 2. ) Shalani A/p Ravichandran
23 July 2025
MYHC
wa-33-79-02-2023
I V A v 1. ) R O M 2. ) A R B
21 July 2025
MYHC
ja-33-534-10-2024
KONG WAN LOOI v 1. ) ONG POO LEE 2. ) CHEN VIN CI
20 July 2025
MYHC
w-02im-1683-10-2023
S H A N v C H A N
17 July 2025
MYCOA
wa-33-32-01-2025
K E E v N E E
15 July 2025
MYHC
s4-33-604-2000
1. ) H E B 2. ) H E M
22 June 2025
MYHC
ja-33-462-09-2022
VIOLET TAN PEI LI v CHIA YEW KEONG
18 June 2025
MYHC
f-33-1229-2010
XXXX v XXXX
22 May 2025
MYHC
wa-33-592-12-2021
L O B v H O B PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN C O B
21 May 2025
MYHC
wa-33-556-11-2024
JONATHAN PETER DAVIES v TAN CHEW YINN
4 May 2025
MYHC
wa-24f-212-08-2024
XXXX v K E N
28 April 2025
MYHC
ja-33-413-08-2024
GONASWARI A/P THEYAGASON v RAJAN A/L KRISHNAN
14 April 2025
MYHC
wa-33-143-04-2024
R I N v 1. ) M I N 2. ) V I N
27 March 2025
MYHC
wa-33-160-04-2024
M A T v 1. ) K A T 2. ) N A T PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN 1. ) S A T 2. ) H A T
25 March 2025
MYHC
wa-33-419-08-2023
L E N (F) v 1. ) P E N 2. ) Y E N PENCELAH M E N (Menyaman Sebagai Sahabat Wakil Kepada Chong Edwin (Seorang Kanak-kanak))
23 March 2025
MYHC
wa-24f-190-07-2024
R A H v R A L
20 February 2025
MYHC
wa-33-158-03-2022
T I N v H I N
13 January 2025
MYHC
a-02a-99-01-2017-a-02a-157-01-2017
GURBACHAN SINGH A/L WAZIR SINGH [NO. K/P: 550522-08-5555] v AMARJIT KAUR A/P ATMA SINGH [NO. K/P: 550511-02-5370]
1 April 2018
MYCOA