HENG SIEW YUET v 1. ) Wong Siew Boon (KA-33-33-04/2022)

dan (d) dan 106(1)(iv) Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Kaedah 8 Kaedah-Kaedah Perceraian dan Perkahwinan 1980 ANTARA Heng Siew Yuet (NO. K/P : 571205-02-5156) --- Pempetisyen DAN Wong Siew Boon (NO. K/P : 570429-02-6129) --- Responden Law Kwai Fun (NO. K/P : 640620-08-6868) --- Responden Bersama GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This is the Grounds of Judgment prepared for the decision delivered by this Court in respect of the full trial of the Divorce Petition filed by the Petitioner Heng Siew Yuet (“the Petitioner”), against the Respondent, Wong Siew Boon (“the Respondent”), and the Co-Respondent, Law Kwai Fun (“the Co-Respondent”) on 14 April 2022. [2] In the Petition, the Petitioner prays for the following orders:

That the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent be dissolved;

That the Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner maintenance in the sum of RM1,000.00 per month, or alternatively, to pay a lump sum amount of RM180,000.00;

That the Respondent be ordered to purchase a house for the Petitioner to reside in;

That the Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner the sum of RM200,000.00 for her medical expenses;

That the Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner the sum of RM400,000.00 as compensation for the Respondent’s adultery;

That the Co-Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner the sum of RM400,000.00 as compensation for the Co-Respondent’s adultery with the Respondent; and

That such other orders be made as the Honourable Court deems just and appropriate. [3] Upon considering all the facts and evidence and the submissions from both parties upon the completion of the full trial, on 25 June 2024, the Court decided that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent be dissolved with the following orders:

The Respondent shall pay the Petitioner maintenance in the sum of RM1,000.00 per month for the duration of the marriage from May 2022 until the date of this order, namely 25 June 2024, amounting to RM26,000.00 to be paid in a lump sum, and thereafter the Petitioner’s maintenance in the sum of RM156,000.00 shall also be paid in a lump sum;

The Respondent shall provide a suitable residence for the Petitioner, which shall be free from any encumbrances or liabilities upon the Petitioner and free from any mortgage;

The Respondent shall pay the Petitioner’s medical expenses amounting to RM50,000.00;

The Respondent and the Co-Respondent shall jointly pay the sum of RM100,000.00 to the Petitioner as damages within three (3) months from the date of this Judgment; and

The costs of these proceedings in the sum of RM8,000.00 shall be paid by the Respondent and the Co-Respondent jointly. [4] Both Respondents were dissatisfied with this decision and have filed appeals. B. BACKGROUND FACTS [5] The Petitioner and the Respondent married in 1979. The Respondent left the Petitioner in 1985 and began a relationship with the Co-Respondent, resulting in the birth of three children before their formal marriage in 2003. Despite the de facto separation, no formal divorce proceedings were initiated until the Petitioner filed this Petition in 2022. [6] The Respondent maintained the Petitioner with monthly sums of RM600, later increased to RM1,000, until such payments ceased after the filing of this Petition. The Petitioner has since been without maintenance and remains in a precarious living situation. [7] The Petitioner resides in a house owned by the Respondent’s family, which is not registered in her name. Given her age is already 67 years old and declining health, she seeks assurance of accommodation and financial security for her remaining years. [8] In their respective replies, both Respondents deny the allegations of adultery and financial irresponsibility. The Respondent asserts that his relationship with the Co-Respondent only became formalised in 2003 through legal marriage and disputes the claim that he has the financial means to meet the reliefs sought. He further contends that the Petitioner owns property herself and is financially capable of self-support. [9] The Co-Respondent, in her reply, emphasises that she was not involved in any wrongful conduct that could justify the Petitioner’s claim for damages against her. She maintains that the Petitioner’s claims are excessive, unsubstantiated, and should be dismissed. [10] The Petitioner, in her rebuttal to both replies, clarifies that the Respondent and Co-Respondent cohabited long before their marriage and that their relationship led to the birth of three (3) children while the Petitioner remained legally married to the Respondent. She disputes the claim that she owns any property and maintains that she has been left vulnerable and unsupported for decades. [11] The Court notes with concern that despite the subsistence of a valid and undissolved marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent proceeded to solemnise a second marriage with the Co-Respondent, which was registered by the National Registration Department (JPN). The Court finds this situation highly irregular and legally untenable, as no second marriage can be validly registered under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 while the first marriage remains subsisting and undissolved. The registration of the second marriage in this case reflects a procedural lapse by the relevant authorities and underscores the legal and emotional hardship endured by the Petitioner. C. FINDINGS OF THE COURT Adultery and Breakdown of Marriage [12] The Court is satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, primarily due to the Respondent’s adulterous relationship with the Co-Respondent, which is substantiated by the birth of children prior to their formal marriage in 2003. This evidence clearly infers adultery and establishes the grounds for divorce under subsection 54(1)(a) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA”). [13] The long delay in filing for divorce by the Petitioner does not negate her entitlement to seek legal redress. The Court acknowledges that emotional, cultural, and financial factors may have contributed to this delay. Maintenance [14] Applying section 78 of the LRA and the principles laid down in cases such as Rose Fernandez v. Anthony John Bosco Pitchay [2023] MLRHU 582 and Chaw Anui v. Tan Kim Chai [2004] 4 MLJ 272, the Court assesses maintenance based on the means and needs of the parties. The Petitioner’s age, health, and inability to earn income warrant a fair and reasonable maintenance. [15] The Petitioner and the Respondent have cited the case of Rose Fernandez’s. In that case, the Judge referred to the case of Lee Chin Guan vs Pang Kim Joon [2017] MLRHU 1466, and Chaw Anui and decided accordingly by taking into consideration factors such as the wife’s devotion to the family, the unlikelihood that the Petitioner would be gainfully employed, and the wife’s health and medical needs. [16] In the case before this Court, since the Petitioner is already 67 years old, this court strongly believes that it is highly unlikely that she will get any job at that age to earn her living. There is no source of income to support her living in the future and therefore the Court agrees that her condition warrant a fair and reasonable maintenance. [17] Given that the Petitioner is old and also in poor health, the Court is of the view that it is just and reasonable for the maintenance to be provided in a lump sum. The Court has referred to the statistical data published by the Department of Statistics Malaysia in 2023, which indicates that the average life expectancy of a Chinese woman in Malaysia is approximately 82.2 years. [18] Based on this statistical reference, and in order to ensure that the Petitioner is able to sustain herself and continue receiving maintenance as was previously provided until the cessation of payment in 2022 following the filing of this petition, the Court considers it appropriate for the maintenance to be calculated up to the age of 80 years. [19] The Court therefore awards RM26,000 as arrears of maintenance (RM1,000 per month from May 2022 to June 2024) and a lump sum maintenance of RM156,000 calculated based on an expected life expectancy until age 80. Accommodation [20] The Petitioner has also sought an order for a house to reside in so that she may spend her remaining years in security, as the house she currently occupies does not belong to her but is owned by the Respondent’s mother. Furthermore, the house was built on land belonging to another party, which clearly does not guarantee the Petitioner any permanent or secure right of residence, especially in the absence of any continuing marital ties between the Petitioner and the Respondent. [21] In this regard, the Court is of the view that compassion alone cannot be the determining factor, particularly in circumstances where such compassion no longer exists, as evidenced by the Respondent having abandoned the Petitioner with their children and his mother, while providing only inadequate financial support as a token of responsibility. This inadequate contribution was further terminated completely once the Divorce Petition was filed in May 2022, revealing the true attitude of the Respondent. [22] The Court finds that the Petitioner is undoubtedly in an insecure and precarious position in her current living arrangement. It is therefore appropriate and necessary for the Respondent to provide her with a suitable residence to ensure her safety, dignity, and stability. [23] Therefore, based on all those facts, given that the Petitioner resides in a house that is neither hers nor secure, the Court orders the Respondent to provide a suitable residence for the Petitioner, free from any encumbrances. This is in line with ensuring her dignity and security in her twilight years. Medical Expenses [24] The Court grants RM50,000 as a reasonable lump sum for the Petitioner’s medical needs, taking into account the availability of government healthcare services but recognising additional personal expenses that may arise. Damages [25] The Court is of the considered view that the act of the Respondent abandoning the Petitioner to live her life alone while taking care of their children and the Respondent’s own mother is a wrong that warrants appropriate redress and serves as a necessary lesson. The emotional hardship and social neglect suffered by the Petitioner over such an extended period cannot be ignored. [26] At the same time, the Court notes that the Petitioner only filed this Petition after enduring many years of abandonment by the Respondent without taking earlier steps to formally end her marital status, despite having been left since 1985. This prolonged delay could give rise to the perception that the Petitioner may not have been significantly affected by the Respondent’s conduct until certain events or needs, known only to the Petitioner herself, ultimately compelled her to commence these proceedings in 2022. Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that the suffering endured by the Petitioner and the injustice of the Respondent’s conduct merit an award of damages as a form of recognition and recompense. [27] The Court recognises that emotional suffering and loss of dignity suffered by the Petitioner are genuine harms. While monetary compensation cannot truly redress such pain, the award of RM100,000 jointly against the Respondent and Co-Respondent serves as symbolic restitution and deterrence against similar misconduct. The case of GEM v. PET [2023] MLRHU 988 cited by the Petitioner in the submission taken from the Respondent’s Bundle of Authority, guides this approach. [28] Having carefully considered the factual matrix, the conduct of the parties, and the financial means of the Respondent and Co-Respondent, the Court believe that the reliefs granted are aimed at achieving justice and ensuring the Petitioner is provided for reasonably, having devoted years to the marriage. Therefore, the Court allows the Petitioner’s prayers as follows:

The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is dissolved;

The Respondent is to pay arrears of maintenance (RM26,000) and lump sum maintenance (RM156,000);

The Respondent is to provide a suitable residence free from encumbrances;

The Respondent is to pay RM50,000 for the Petitioner’s medical expenses;

The Respondent and Co-Respondent are jointly liable to pay RM100,000 in damages;

The Respondent and Co-Respondent are jointly liable for costs of RM8,000. [29] The decree nisi shall be made absolute after the statutory period, subject to compliance with the orders herein. Dated : 3rd July 2025 ……………………………………………………… (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) Judge High Court Malaya Alor Setar, Kedah. Peguam Pempetisyen: Noorlaili binti Aziz KC Ang (Tetuan Laili & Co.) Peguam Responden: Encik Wong Tau Hau (Tetuan T.H. Wong & Co.)