Dr Ahrunagiry S/O Karuppan Chettiar v Santhi @Kannammai D/O Mohan (BA-33-339-07/2021)

and (1) (b), Section 58, 78, 88 and 92 Law Reform Act (Marriage and Divorce) 1978 (Act 164) BETWEEN DR AHRUNAGIRY A/L KARUPPAN CHETTIAR [NO. K/P: 540210-08-5301] … PETIONER HUSBAND AND

SANTHI @ KANNAMAI A/P MOHAN [NO. K/P: 700830-10-6486]

SETHURAMAN A/L MUTHUKARUPPAN [NO. K/P: 740910-10-5201] … RESPONDENTS

These committal proceedings were initiated by the petitioner husband against the respondent wife, based on two allegations as follows:

The respondent wife has provided false testimony regarding her association with Robin Stanislaus a/l Valanganny, asserting in Court that she never engaged in any sexual conduct with him;

(ii) The respondent wife has lied about the paternity of her third child, Mohan a/l Ahrunagiry, whom she testified was conceived via a sperm donor. However, it is allegedly the result of her sexual conduct with one Satish a/l Suppiah, who passed away in 2013.

After thorough examination of the affidavit evidence and the submissions presented by the learned counsel, I hereby dismiss the committal proceedings with costs. I conclude that the requisite burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been satisfied, as mandated by law.

The petitioner, the husband, is a qualified private medical practitioner, and the respondent, the wife, is an advocate, solicitor, and freelance lecturer. The second respondent is a mutual family friend and an engineer by profession.

The petitioner husband and respondent wife were lawfully married in accordance with Hindu rites and registered their marriage on December 3, 1997. There are three children from the marriage. The two eldest daughters are each over 18 years of age, whereas the youngest, a son, was 15 years old at the time of the trial. Although the petitioner husband is not the biological father of the youngest child, he acknowledges and recognises him as his son.

The marriage deteriorated and broke down amid allegations of adultery, infidelity, and unreasonable behaviour by both parties, prompting the respondent wife to leave the matrimonial home in October 2018. In July 2021, the petitioner husband initiated divorce proceedings.

The extract from the grounds of judgment of the learned trial Judge who heard this full trial is as follows: “12. Having considered the totality of the evidence, the cause papers, and the respective written as well as oral submissions of counsel for all parties, the Court was satisfied that the PH had failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the requirements of section 54(a) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 against the RW and the 2nd Respondent. Accordingly, the PH’s allegation of adultery against the RW and the 2nd Respondent was not proven and was therefore dismissed.”

The Court further found that the petitioner husband’s claim against the respondent wife pursuant to section 54(1)(b) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 had likewise not been proven on a balance of probabilities, and accordingly that claim was also dismissed.

As for the Cross petition by the respondent wife against the petitioner husband, it was the Court’s finding that the respondent wife had failed to prove her allegations that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the intolerable behaviour of the petitioner husband. The claim in the Cross Petition was likewise dismissed. (refer to Enclosure 191)”

An appeal has been lodged by the petitioner husband in respect of the decision of the learned Judge dated 27th October 2025.

These committal proceedings were initiated as early as 30th July 2025, as set out in Enclosure 139. Subsequently, the ex parte Notice of Application was amended and filed on 22nd September 2025, identified as Enclosure 162. The Statement in Support was filed on 24th September 2025, Enclosure 163.

The learned trial Judge at that time granted leave to proceed with the committal proceedings on 24th September 2025. The Notice of Application for the committal proceedings was filed on 30th September 2025, Enclosure 165.

Notably, the Court's decision following the full trial was not pronounced until 27th October 2025.

Issue to be Tried Whether the alleged contempt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

Decision of this Court It is settled law that the standard of proof in civil contempt is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court case of Wee Choo Keong; Houng Hai Hong & Anor v MBF Holdings Bhd & Anor & 3 Other Appeals [1995] 4CLJ 427 is cited.

The petitioner husband’s argument is that the respondent wife has given false testimony under oath, thereby obstructing justice and causing a substantial miscarriage of justice in a fair and proper trial.

The accusation against the respondent wife centred on the evidence she gave regarding her relationship with Robin Stanislaus and the paternity of her son, Mohan.

When the leave application and the notice of application for the committal proceedings were filed, the verdict of the full trial had not yet been delivered. The full trial decision was delivered on 27th October 2025.

This means that at the time of filing the contempt proceedings, there are no findings of fact by the trial Judge on whether the respondent wife's testimony is false.

The affidavit of Robin Stanislaus a/l Valanganny, enclosed as Enclosure 142, merely reinforces the evidence he presented at the main trial, which had not yet been determined when these committal proceedings were initiated.

There is a reference to a video recording, Enclosure 112, which has not been produced before this Court. The respondent wife alleges that the video recording was not served on her; accordingly, it remains a disputed fact before this Court. Notably, the trial Judge dismissed Enclosure 112. The minutes of her pronouncement relating to Enclosure 112 are as follows, extracted from the minutes in the CMS system dated 26th February 2025: “I have considered your submissions on all these 3 issues that has been raised with regards to the 1st issue, the additional witness statement. I do not accept this enclosure 111. As I have stated, I still am with my stand that the witness statements that were filed the previously should be the ones to be used, and there will be no further additional witness statements to be filed likewise with documents. Therefore, with regards to Mr Robin from my perusal of the chronology of the case, Mr Robin was named as the witness in the amended witness list in October 2023, and his witness statement was prepared and filed in December 2024. So naturally, you would have realised that he would have had documents, and these documents should have been put into the bundle of documents. Since it is not put, I do not allow any further documents to be put in as exhibits in this case. I wish to treat enclosure 112, the application by Mr Goban as a preliminary question during the proceedings today. So, therefore, I do not need any affidavits. I have considered it, and the application is not allowed.”

No appeal was filed against the trial Judge’s decision on Enclosure 112.

Alternatively, the petitioner husband chose to reintroduce that evidence through the committal proceedings. At all times during the committal proceedings, the alleged video recordings were not produced as evidence.

From the above, it can be inferred that the petitioner husband assumed the role of the trial Judge and concluded that the respondent wife committed perjury in Court before the trial Judge rendered a decision. What is lacking here is any finding of fact by the trial Judge that the respondent wife gave false testimony during the trial. Enclosure 191 is referred to.

In her grounds of judgment, contained in Enclosure 191, the trial Judge has made adverse findings regarding the testimony of the petitioner husband in court as follows: “93. As for the PH, his credibility was materially undermined by his ready and uncritical acceptance of allegations made by witnesses without undertaking any meaningful steps to verify their accuracy. This was compounded by the fact that his oral testimony in court departed in material respects from his own pleaded case. Such inconsistencies, particularly when they concern central issues, inevitably cast doubt on the reliability of his evidence.”

Therefore, I conclude that the contempt proceedings against the respondent wife are unsubstantiated due to the lack of credible evidence, and consequently, there are no grounds for initiating committal proceedings at this stage.

Assuming that the petitioner, the husband, intends to pursue the allegation of perjury against the respondent, the most effective and available course of action would be to lodge a police report. It is then the public prosecutor's responsibility to prosecute the respondent, the wife, under Section 193 of the Penal Code.

In Enclosure 140, the petitioner husband, for the first time, produced a chemist's report titled Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 25-FR-B-09285, dated 24-4-2025, indicating that the DNA profile of his son, Mohan, was consistent with a familial relationship with Suppiah a/l Vellasamy, who is allegedly the biological father of the deceased Satish, with a probability of familial relationship of 98.2905%.

It is pertinent to note that Mohan’s paternity was not the pleaded case of the petitioner husband. It is settled law that parties are bound by their own pleadings.

This Court also take note that the report is dated 24th April 2025 but was not tendered during the trial.

There is no evidence before this Court that the paternity test was conducted voluntarily, given its implications for the child’s personal autonomy. The Federal Court case MPPL v Cas [2024] 4 MLJ 524 is cited.

In Enclosure 141, there is no documentary evidence before this Court that Suppiah a/l Vellasamy is the biological father of the deceased called Satish.

As this report was not presented during the trial, it is highly prejudicial to speculate that the respondent wife was engaged in an adulterous relationship with the deceased Satish, as there was no opportunity for cross-examination on this matter. The evidence before the trial Judge was that Mohan was conceived through a sperm donor process.

Since the paternity of Mohan was not in dispute in this case, the petitioner's attempt to raise it as an issue is unwarranted and, at this juncture, made in bad faith.

The petitioner husband’s main concern is that the respondent wife lied about the sperm donor.

All that the petitioner husband ultimately seeks is for the respondent wife to be found guilty of contempt due to giving false testimony in court.

Unfortunately, there are too many lacunae in these committal proceedings, and I hereby rule that the petitioner husband has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion I hereby rule that, based on the reasoning provided above, the petitioner husband has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt his allegations against the respondent wife for this Court to find her guilty of contempt.

Therefore, this is a fit and proper case for the dismissal of the petitioner’s husband’s application with costs. Dated: 8th June 2026 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Date of Decision: 17th April 2026 Counsels: For the Petioner Husband : G. Nanda Goban & Chelsea Tan Luo Pei Messrs Goban & Company For the First Respondent : Harvindar Singh & Sharanpreet Kaur Messrs Harvindar Singh & Co.