6567.00 8 [24] As can be seen the Applicant claims she spends an average of 9 RM6567.00 per month on those items. 10 S/N wMsuGJLcRki2XlENwgoHyg [25] I then looked for the attachment of receipts, invoices, bank 1 statements or any other contemporaneous documentary evidence in 2 those affidavits that would support her claim for maintenance. 3 4 [26] In this connection I failed to find any cogent evidence to support the 5 claims made by the Applicant. The absence of contemporary documents, 6 to my mind is significant. I took note that the Applicant failed to explain or 7 give reasons for the need for each and every one of the items listed and 8 whether these items were needed as necessities and essentials for her 9 use. I found that the Applicant failed to prove the details of the expenditure 10 allegedly incurred by her as listed out in the table above. Claims such as 11 the PTPTN loan insurance and house rental will inevitably yield receipts 12 and invoices, yet none were exhibited. I found a most conspicuous failure 13 to furnish the basis for claiming some of the items. In my assessment 14 some of the items were unnecessary and even if held otherwise, its 15 associated cost seemed inflated. 16 17 [27] In my view the sum allegedly spent by the Applicant as shown in the 18 tabulated form is excessive and quite unreasonable for the consumption 19 of a single individual in a month. The Applicant failed to show any 20 evidence of these needs. Items such as groceries and wet market items 21 were not accompanied with receipts. Surely she does not have to spend 22 a large sum for these groceries and wet market items. The claim for food 23 seems unreasonably high and no satisfactory explanation was 24 forthcoming. The Applicant had even factored in a claim for her mother’s 25 medical expenses. I find it unreasonable for the Respondent to be 26 responsible for the medical expenses incurred by the Applicant’s mother. 27 It is absurd for the Respondent to bear her PTPTN loan and Coway bed. 28 S/N wMsuGJLcRki2XlENwgoHyg [28] It is vital to be reminded that the court in ordering maintenance will 1 be one that will enable an adult to live a normal life within the means and 2 affordability of the other party. 3 4 [29] It is not acceptable for the Applicant to merely list out every item she 5 could possibly think of and throw it to the court and say “This is what I 6 have lost; I ask you to give me this damages” (see comment by Lord 7 Goddard in Bonham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR 177). 8 9 [30] The Applicant asserts that the Respondent is financially sound. She 10 referred to his salary slip for January 2023 (Exh GS-11) which shows that 11 he is paid a salary of USD11,700 per month working as a marine engineer 12 offshore. In addition, he is the registered owner of a number of properties. 13 She asserts that he can well afford the quantum of maintenance she is 14 claiming for herself and her son. The Applicant urged this Court to take 15 note that the Respondent had failed to provide full and frank disclosure of 16 his sources of income and an account of his expenditure. 17 18 [31] However, I am of the view regardless of the Respondent’s sound 19 financial capacity or otherwise, it is incumbent on the Applicant first to 20 justify the amount claimed. As this is an application for interim 21 maintenance only, the Applicant’s duty first and foremost is to fulfil the 22 means and needs test. If this is not satisfactorily addressed then the 23 application may not be successful. 24 25 [32] It is my finding that the Applicant is not wholly financially dependent 26 on the Defendant. She is capable of maintaining herself. She was reticent 27 about her earnings and made scant reference to her place of employment. 28 In Paragraph 25 of her AIS she stated that she works as an “engineer”. 29 S/N wMsuGJLcRki2XlENwgoHyg She states that she earns $2,160.00 and whether it was inadvertent or 1 deliberate did not mention that this amount is earned in Singapore dollars. 2 3 [33] To compound matters further she did not exhibit her earnings in any 4 of her affidavits. Without the benefit of the salary slips and income 5 statements, this Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference pursuant 6 to section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. She cannot complain that the 7 Respondent has not provided full and frank disclosure of his income when 8 she herself has failed to do so. The burden of proof here lies on the 9 Applicant to show that she does not have the means but has the needs 10 for all the itemised expenses she claimed. In so far as the Applicant is 11 concerned there has been a dismal lack of supportive documentary 12 evidence of the same. I draw the adverse inference that by reason of her 13 failure to provide full disclosure of her own earnings and income, it would 14 tend to show that she is capable and has the financial capacity to meet all 15 her needs and would not need any support from the Respondent for 16 herself. 17 18 [34] I have taken into consideration that the Applicant was as at the date 19 of this decision 32 years of age. She did not mention that she suffers from 20 any affliction. She is therefore able bodied and more than physically 21 capable of providing for herself. 22 23 [35] The Applicant is not simply a stay at home wife and mother. She is 24 well educated and a career woman and by all accounts earns a 25 reasonable salary. She is not left in a state of destitute by the breakdown 26 of the marriage. She is more than able to support and maintain herself 27 due to her own financial capability. It appears to me that the interim 28 maintenance of RM5000.00 per month for herself alone seems to be 29 S/N wMsuGJLcRki2XlENwgoHyg rooted not in a consideration of ‘means and needs’ but rather for the 1 reason that the Respondent is wealthy. For these reasons I respectfully 2 was of the view that she had failed the ‘means and needs’ test and as 3 such, spousal maintenance was not warranted. 4 5 [36] I am inclined to agree fully with the Respondent’s contention that the 6 claim for spousal maintenance is unreasonable and unsupported. On this 7 point the decision of the High Court in the case of Shameni Pillai a/p P B 8 Rajendran v S Arulsevam a/l Sanggilly & Rafidah bt Mat Taib [2010] 9 MLJU 1333 is relevant where His Lordship Vazeer Alam Mydin Meer JC 10 held at paragraphs 19 and 20 as follows : 11 12 “[19] I find merit in Ms Kandiah's argument. I find the Petitioner's claim 13 for maintenance to be highly inflated, unsubstantiated and 14 unreasonable. The Petitioner cannot simply throw a figure at the court 15 and say that is what she is entitled to…”. 16 17 [37] I agree with and adopt the reasoning of the learned Judge in YAY v 18 WHO [2023] 3 CLJ 135 who observed that the traditional roles of husband 19 and wife have evolved and the duty of the Court is to consider all factors 20 to determine if the maintenance claim by the PW is justified. 21 22 [38] Having examined the totality of the material available before the 23 court, in particular the contents of the pleadings and the affidavits in 24 respect of the “means and needs” test, I came to the conclusion that the 25 Applicant has failed to fulfil that test. Most significantly I found the 26 Applicant’s claims were hampered by the lack of documentary evidence 27 to support her aforementioned assertions. The Applicant failed to disclose 28 the supportive documents to state that she had been relying on the 29 S/N wMsuGJLcRki2XlENwgoHyg Respondent for her daily maintenance in the duration of the marriage. 1 Given the absence of corroborative documentation I could not endorse 2 the claim for spousal maintenance. 3 4 [39] At any rate this is merely an interim application and the Applicant 5 still has the opportunity to prove her claim for spousal maintenance at the 6 hearing of the divorce proceedings should either party be inclined to file 7 the petition in the near future. Therefore, the maintenance for the 8 Applicant is merely paused or postponed and may be ventilated at a later 9 date. 10 11 Child Maintenance 12 [40] It is the duty of a parent to maintain his or her child, regardless of 13 who has custody. The duty to maintain a child is governed by sections 92 14 and 93 of the LRA which read as follows : 15 16 “Section 92 - Duty to maintain children 17 Except where an agreement or order of court otherwise provides, it shall 18 be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance 19 of his or her children, whether they are in his or her custody or the 20 custody of any other person, either by providing them with such 21 accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable 22 having regard to his or her means and station in life or by paying the 23 cost thereof. 24 25 Section 93 - Power for court to order maintenance for children 26