Liew Ann Lee v Yap Kean Chong (CB-24F-19-10/2024)

(B) 127/1976 yang menetapkan bahawa naskah sahih bagi Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976 dan mana-mana perundangan kecil yang dibuat di dalamnya hendaklah naskah dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Seksyen 106 memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “106 Requirement of reference to conciliatory body before petition for divorce

No person shall petition for divorce, except under sections 51 and 52, unless he or she has first referred the matrimonial difficulty to a conciliatory body and that body has certified that it has failed to reconcile the parties: Provided that this requirement shall not apply in any case-

where the petitioner alleges that he or she has been deserted by and does not know the whereabouts of his or her spouse;

(ii) where the respondent is residing abroad and it is unlikely that he or she will enter the jurisdiction within six months next ensuing after the date of the petition;

(iii) where the respondent has been required to appear before a conciliatory body and has wilfully failed to attend;

(iv) where the respondent is imprisoned for a term of five years or more;

where the petitioner alleges that the respondent is suffering from incurable mental illness; or

(vi) where the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make reference to a conciliatory body impracticable.

A matrimonial difficulty may be referred to any conciliatory body acceptable to both parties but, where they are unable to agree on a conciliatory body, shall be referred to the marriage tribunal for the area in which they reside or, where they are living in different areas, to the marriage tribunal for the area in which they had last resided together.

A "conciliatory body" means-

a council set up for the purposes of reconciliation by the appropriate authority of any religion, community, clan or association; or

a marriage tribunal; or

any other body approved as such by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.

A marriage tribunal shall be set up for such specified area or district as the Minister may decide, consisting of a Chairman and not less than two nor more than four other members who shall be nominated by the Minister, or by such officer to whom the Minister may have delegated his powers to in that behalf.

(a) A conciliatory body to which a matrimonial difficulty has been referred shall resolve it within the period of six months from the date of reference; and shall require the attendance of the parties and shall give each of them an opportunity of being heard and may hear such other persons and make such inquiries as it may think fit and may, if it considers it necessary, adjourn its proceedings from time to time.

If the conciliatory body is unable to resolve the matrimonial difficulty to the satisfaction of the parties and to persuade them to resume married life together, it shall issue a certificate to that effect and may append to its certificate such recommendations as it thinks fit regarding maintenance, division of matrimonial property and the custody of the minor children, if any, of the marriage.

No advocate or solicitor shall appear or act as such for any party in any proceeding before a conciliatory body and no party shall be represented by any person, other than a member of his or her family, without the leave of the conciliatory body.” [2] Asas kepada permohonan ini seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam affidavit sokongan ialah tindakan Responden yang telah dikatakan melakukan perbuatan zina (adultery). Ia menyebabkan tiada kemungkinan untuk perdamaian dicapai melalui badan pendamai. Ia adalah merupakah usaha yang sia-sia dan akan berakhir dengan kekecewaan. [3] Pemohon telah mengemukakan petikan Whatsapp dan gambar-gambar di dalam eksibit bagi menyokong dakwaan penzinaan yang dikatakan dilakukan oleh Responden. Pemohon juga menyatakan adalah sukar untuk Pemohon untuk hadir ke Temerloh dari Johor Bahru untuk menghadiri sesi di hadapan badan pendamai tersebut. [4] Sebaliknya Responden menyatakan bahawa rujukan kepada badan pendamai adalah kehendak undang-undang yang perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon dan Responden sebelum pemfailan petisyen pembubaran perkahwinan dilakukan. Malahan Responden menyatakan bahawa Pemohon tidak dapat menunjukkan perbuatan penzinaan oleh Responden dan Responden masih berusaha untuk menyelamatkan perkahwinan mereka. [5] Pada hemat Mahkamah ini ketika menimbangkan permohonan pengecualian rujukan kepada badan pendamai di bawah seksyen 106 Akta tersebut, Mahkamah ini perlu memahami tujuan seksyen 106 dan hubung kaitnya dengan institusi perkahwinan. Perkahwinan adalah satu ikatan suci di antara seorang suami dan isteri yang akan memberikan tanggungjawab dan hak yang dinyatakan di bawah undang-undang. Oleh itu pembubaran perkahwinan sewajarnya menjadi jalan terakhir dan usaha-usaha pendamaian perlu diusahakan seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976. Selain daripada peruntukan khusus di bawah seksyen 106, Mahkamah juga perlu mengambil kira seksyen 55 Akta tersebut yang menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “55 Provisions designed to encourage reconciliation

Provision may be made by rules of court for requiring that before the presentation of a petition for divorce the petitioner shall have recourse to the assistance and advice of such persons or bodies as may be made available for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation between parties to a marriage who have become estranged.

If at any stage of proceedings for divorce it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the parties to the marriage, the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a reconciliation. The power conferred by the foregoing provision is additional to any other power of the court to adjourn proceedings.” Sorotan ringkas undang-undang perceraian dan pendamaian perkahwinan [6] Jika diteliti undang-undang di United Kingdom perceraian boleh dikendalikan dan diberi kuasa daripada Mahkamah Ecclesiastical di England melalui Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 yang menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “II. As soon as this Act shall come into operation, all Jurisdiction now exerciseable by any Ecclesiastical Court in England in respect of a Divorces Mensa et Thoro, Suits of Nullity of Marriage, Suits of Jactitation of Marriage, Suits for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, and in all Causes, Suits, and Matters Matrimonial, shall cease to be so exerciseable, except so far as relates to the granting of Marriage Licences, which may be granted as if this Act had not been passed.” [7] Seterusnya di bawah Matrimonial Causes Act 1923 telah dibuat pindaan kepada Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 dengan memasukkan peruntukan berkenaan dengan hak isteri untuk memohon perceraian akibat daripada perbuatan zina suami. Ini dinyatakan seperti berikut: “1. It shall be lawful for any wife to present a petition to the court praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that her husband has, since the celebration thereof and since the passing of this Act, been guilty of adultery: Provided that nothing contained herein shall affect or take away any right of any wife existing immediately before the passing of this Act.” [8] Penelitian kepada Matrimonial Causes Act 1963 di United Kingdom telah dikatakan sebagai suatu kemudahan untuk proses pendamaian. Ini dinyatakan oleh M. Siraj (Mrs.) dalam artikel beliau bertajuk Conciliation Proceedings In Divorce Proceedings [1965] Malaya Law Review Vol. 7 No. 2 314 seperti yang berikut: “Facilities for reconciliation have recently been provided by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1963, which makes it possible for spouses to continue or resume cohabitation for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation, without a presumption of condonation arising. It is provided that adultery or cruelty shall not be deemed to have been condoned by reason only of a continuation or resumption of cohabitation between the parties for one period not exceeding three months or of anything done during such cohabitation, if it is proved that cohabitation was continued or resumed, as the case may be, with a view to effecting a reconciliation.” [9] Dalam artikel tersebut juga telah dipetik Laporan Suruhanjaya DiRaja berkaitan dengan perkahwinan dan perceraian di United Kingdom yang telah menyatakan laporannya seperti yang berikut: “Starting from the conviction that the nation’s well-being depends largely upon the quality of married life among its members, we were naturally led to consider the means by which harmony and union, once threatened, could be maintained and restored. Thus the various efforts that are being made to give guidance and promote reconciliation came under review, together with the influence upon them of the divorce law and its administration. Successful marriage and the maintenance of the unity of family life are so important that, where husband and wife have become estranged, an attempt should be made wherever possible to bring them together again. A matter so intimately affected by human personalities must present great variety and complexity. There are cases no doubt where a comparatively trivial fault has been magnified beyond all recognition; there are others in which the surface strains and stresses are symptoms of a graver and more deep-seated disharmony. The first task of marriage guidance must be to bring to light the causes of failure, actual or threatened. If these prove to be largely external (housing shortage, unwise relatives and the like) or largely personal (petty selfishness, lack of understanding, sexual maladjustment, failure to have children), there is reasonable chance that wise and skilled counsel may bear fruit. But marriage guidance has obviously far less chance of success when the malaise is really due to the acceptance of false standards of value and of behaviour in marriage.” [10] Seterusnya, badan perundangan di United Kingdom telah memperkenalkan Divorce Reform Act 1969. Di dalam Divorce Reform Act 1969 telah diperuntukkan secara khusus peruntukan berkenaan dengan galakan untuk pendamaian. Ia dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 3 seperti yang berikut: “3.— (1) Provision shall be made by rules of court for requiring the solicitor acting for petitioner for divorce to certify whether he has discussed with the petitioner the possibility of reconciliation and given him the names and addresses of persons qualified to help effect reconciliation between parties to marriage who have become estranged.

If at any stage of proceedings for divorce it appears to the court that there is reasonable possibility of reconciliation between the parties to the marriage, the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such reconciliation. The power conferred by the foregoing provision is additional to any other power of the court to adjourn proceedings.

Where the parties to the marriage have lived with each other for any period or periods after it became known to the petitioner that the respondent had, since the celebration of the marriage, committed adultery, then,—

if the length of that period or of those periods together was six months or less, their living with each other during that period or those periods shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of section 2(1)(a) of this Act whether the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent; but

if the length of that period or of those periods together exceeded six months, the petitioner shall not be entitled to rely on that adultery for the purposes of the said section 2(1)(a).

Where the petitioner alleges that the respondent has behaved in such way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him, but the parties to the marriage have lived with each other for period or periods after the date of the occurrence of the final incident relied on by the petitioner and held by the court to support his allegation, that fact shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of section 2(1)(b) of this Act whether the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent if the length of that period or of those periods together was six months or less.

In considering for the purposes of section 2(1) of this Act whether the period for which the respondent has deserted the petitioner or the period for which the parties to marriage have lived apart has been continuous, no account shall be taken of any one period (not exceeding six months) or of any two or more periods (not exceeding six months in all) during which the parties resumed living with each other, but no period during which the parties lived with each other shall count as part of the period of desertion or of the period for which the parties to the marriage lived apart, as the case may be.

References in this section to the parties to marriage living with each other shall be construed as references to their living with each other in the same household.” [11] Ia seterusnya dikekalkan di dalam Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 seperti yang terdapat di bawah seksyen 6 seperti yang berikut: “6 Attempts at reconciliation of parties to marriage.

Provision shall be made by rules of court for requiring the [F9legal representative] acting for [F10an applicant for a divorce order to certify whether the representative has discussed with the applicant the possibility of reconciliation and given the applicant] the names and addresses of persons qualified to help effect a reconciliation between parties to a marriage who have become estranged.

If at any stage of proceedings for [F11a divorce order] it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the parties to the marriage, the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a reconciliation. The power conferred by the foregoing provision is additional to any other power of the court to adjourn proceedings.” [12] Penelitian kepada Divorce Reform Act 1969 menunjukkan bahawa keretakan perkahwinan yang tidak dapat dipulihkan (irretrievable breakdown) adalah merupakan satu-satunya alasan untuk perceraian. Ini dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 1 dan 2 seperti yang berikut: “1. After the commencement of this Act the sole ground on which petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to a marriage shall be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

2.— (1) The court hearing a petition for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the petitioner satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts, that is to say —

that the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent;

that the respondent has behaved in such way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;

that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent consents to decree being granted;

that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

On petition for divorce it shall be the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner and into any facts alleged by the respondent.

If the court is satisfied on the evidence of any such fact as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, then, unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably, it shall, subject to section of this Act and section 5(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, grant decree nisi of divorce.

For the purpose of subsection (1)(c) of this section the court may treat period of desertion as having continued at time when the deserting party was incapable of continuing the necessary intention if the evidence before the court is such that, had that party not been so incapable, the court would have inferred that his desertion continued at that time.

For the purposes of this Act husband and wife shall be treated as living apart unless they are living with each other in the same household.

Provision shall be made by rules of court for the purpose of ensuring that where in pursuance of subsection (1)(d) of this section the petitioner alleges that the respondent consents to decree being granted the respondent has been given such information as will enable him to understand the consequences to him of his consenting to decree being granted and the steps which he must take to indicate that he consents to the grant of decree.” [13] Peruntukan yang sama juga terdapat di dalam Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 seperti yang berikut: “1.—(1) Subject to section 3 below, petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to marriage on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

The court hearing petition for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the petitioner satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts, that is to say—

that the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent;

that the respondent has behaved in such way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;

that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (hereafter in this Act referred to as “two years’ separation”) and the respondent consents to decree being granted;

that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (hereafter in this Act referred to as “five years’ separation”).

On petition for divorce it shall be the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner and into any facts alleged by the respondent.

If the court is satisfied on the evidence of any such fact as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, then, unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably, it shall, subject to sections 3(3) and below, grant decree of divorce.

Every decree of divorce shall in the first instance be decree nisi and shall not be made absolute before the expiration of six months from its grant unless the High Court by general order from time to time fixes shorter period, or unless in any particular case the court in which the proceedings are for the time being pending from time to time by special order fixes shorter period than the period otherwise applicable for the time being by virtue of this subsection.” [14] Ini bermakna Divorce Reform Act 1969 dan Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 yang pari materia dengan seksyen 53 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976 yang memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “53 Breakdown of marriage to be sole ground for divorce

Either party to a marriage may petition for a divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

The court hearing such petition shall, so far as it reasonably can, inquire into the facts alleged as causing or leading to the breakdown of the marriage and, if satisfied that the circumstances make it just and reasonable to do so, make a decree for its dissolution.” [15] Seksyen 54 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976 memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “(1) In its inquiry into the facts and circumstances alleged as causing or leading to the breakdown of the marriage, the court shall have regard to one or more of the following facts, that is to say-

that the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent;

that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;

that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

In considering whether it would be just and reasonable to make a decree the court shall consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and how the interests of any child or children of the marriage or of either party may be affected if the marriage is dissolved and it may make a decree nisi subject to such terms and conditions as the court may think fit to attach, but if it should appear to the court that in all the circumstances it would be wrong to dissolve the marriage it shall dismiss the petition.” [16] Ia menunjukkan bahawa pembubaran perkahwinan adalah tertakluk kepada doktrin kesilapan pihak Responden yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pempetisyen. Ia dikenali sebagai doktrin kesilapan (fault doctrine). [17] Namun begitu undang-undang di United Kingdom kini berkenaan dengan perceraian telah tidak lagi berpaksikan kepada doktrin kesilapan. Ini dapat dilihat melalui The Divorce And Separation Act 2020 yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “For section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage) substitute— “Divorce on breakdown of marriage

Subject to section 3, either or both parties to a marriage may apply to the court for an order (a “divorce order”) which dissolves the marriage on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

An application under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a statement by the applicant or applicants that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

The court dealing with an application under subsection (1) must—

take the statement to be conclusive evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and

make a divorce order.

A divorce order—

is, in the first instance, a conditional order, and

may not be made final before the end of the period of 6 weeks from the making of the conditional order. …” Ia berkuat kuasa pada 06 April 2022 melalui The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (Commencement) Regulations 2022. Sorotan ringkas undang-undang perceraian di Malaysia dan hubung kait dengan proses pendamaian [18] Penelitian kepada undang-undang perceraian di Malaysia iaitu Divorce Ordinance 1952 adalah didapati tiada peruntukan khusus yang mengesa supaya pendamaian dilakukan oleh satu jawatankuasa yang perlu dilakukan sebelum daripada perintah pembubaran perkahwinan. Di bawah Divorce Ordinance 1952 peruntukan di bawah pembubaran perkahwinan dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 dan 13 yang tidak langsung memperuntukkan berkenaan dengan badan pendamai. Oleh yang demikian adalah wajar untuk Mahkamah ini mengesan asal-usul seksyen 106 Akta tersebut yang menjadi sebahagian daripada undang-undang perkahwinan dan perceraian sekarang. [19] Bagi menjawab persoalan ini Mahkamah perlu meneliti kepada Report of the Royal Commission on Non-Muslim Marriage and Divorce Laws. Suruhanjaya DiRaja ini telah dilantik oleh Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di-Pertuan Agong pada 04 Februari 1970 yang dianggotai oleh Tan Sri Ong Hock Thye, Puan P.G. Lim, Enche’ M Shankar, Puan Sri Rosalind Y.C. Foo dan Datin Janaki Athi Nahappan. [20] Dalam Laporan Suruhanjaya DiRaja bertarikh 15 November 1971 di halaman 13 telah dinyatakan bahawa wajar untuk digalakkan pendamaian. Ia dilakukan dengan merujuk kepada Divorce Reform Act

Laporan tersebut menyatakan seperti yang berikut: “The Divorce Reform Act 1969, which is now the law in England, recognises irretrievable breakdown of a marriage as the sole ground for divorce and goes on to provide that there can be no finding of irretrievable breakdown without proof of one or more specific facts, which may be summed up as adultery, cruelty, desertion and separation. In most European countries, too, the breakdown principle has carried the day and it is likewise the opinion of the Commission that, where the prospect of continuing cohabitation has disappeared the true significance of marriage goes with it The object of reform should be to enable the empty shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness and the minimum bitterness distress and humiliation. Before granting any divorce it is necessary for an English court to be satisfied, so far as it reasonably can by inquiry into the facts, that the breakdown is complete and irretrievable. Where there appears a reasonable possibility of reconciliation the court may at any time adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to encourage reconciliation. These salutary provisions are made in the Divorce Reform Act of 1969. Similar safeguards appropriate to this country, are recommended by the Commission.” [21] Di dalam laporan tersebut juga telah dilampirkan Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Bill, 1972 di mana dinyatakan peruntukan berkaitan dengan badan pendamai di bawah seksyen 104 ketika itu yang kini merupakan seksyen 106 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976 yang menyatakan bahawa peruntukan tersebut adalah merupakan alternatif terbaik bagi Malaysia untuk mewujudkan satu prosedur pendamaian. Ini dinyatakan di muka surat 58 seperti yang berikut: “Clause 104 provides what is considered a more practicable alternative for Malaysia to the reconciliation procedures laid down in the (English) Divorce Reform Act, 1969. A large body of Justices of the Peace, with hardly any official functions and authority as such to perform useful community service, can be enlisted to assist as marriage conciliators, apart from senior members of Church councils and reputable public-spirited citizens holding positions of responsibility in certain communities and associations.” [22] Penelitian kepada susur galur undang-undang berkaitan dengan pendamaian di bawah undang-undang perceraian adalah mustahak pada hemat Mahkamah bagi memahami hasrat sebenar penggubalan atau peruntukan berkenaan dengan badan pendamai tersebut. Ia dapat membantu Mahkamah ini untuk mempertimbangkan pengecualian yang boleh diberikan di bawah seksyen 106 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976. Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa terdapat pandangan yang menyatakan bahawa badan pendamai di bawah seksyen 106 Akta tersebut adalah suatu yang tidak berkesan. Ini adalah disebabkan pihak-pihak yang ingin bercerai telahpun membuat keputusan untuk bercerai dan sebarang tindakan pendamaian oleh badan pendamai adalah sia-sia. Ini telah dinyatakan oleh Mimi Kamariah Majid dalam Family Law in Malaysia Malaysian Law Journal, 1999 di halaman 188 seperti yang berikut: “Although the intention behind the reconciliation requirement in the LRA is noble and worthy, there are problems and difficulties related to this requirement. In Malaysian society, where familial ties are still fairly strong, parties whose marriages are facing difficulties would invariably seek help from members within the family circle. If that fails, a party would consult a lawyer and be advised on the procedures, requirements, and implications relevant to a divorce proceeding. The party’s final decisions to go ahead with a petition for divorce usually signals the absence of any likelihood of a reconciliation. It is therefore argued that a reference to a conciliatory body is a waste of time and resources.” [23] Sentimen yang sama juga dinyatakan oleh Nora Abdul Hak dalam artikelnya bertajuk Reconciliation Provision under English and Malaysian Family Law: A Comparative Overview, The Law Review

Malahan kajian lapangan berkenaan dengan kejayaan badan pendamai telah yang dinyatakan oleh Nur Ezan Rahmat dan Nora Abdul Hak dalam artikel bertajuk Perceptions of The Disputing Parties Towards Reconciliation Process At The Marriage Tribunal In Malaysia, UiTM Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 2 2020 Issue 2 43 di halaman 48 seperti yang berikut: “3.6 The Outcome of the Reconciliation Process The majority of 99 out of 105 respondents wanted to petition for divorce in the court after they had gone through the reconciliation process at the Marriage Tribunal. It supports the hypothesis that the Marriage Tribunal fails to reconcile the disputing parties in the settlement of their matrimonial disputes.” [24] Mahkamah ini berpendapat sama ada badan pendamai tersebut berkesan atau tidak bukanlah faktor penentu kepada sama ada permohonan untuk pengecualian rujukan kepada badan pendamai itu perlu dibenarkan atau tidak. Ini adalah disebabkan keseluruhan undang-undang berkaitan dengan penceraian sekarang yang mempunyai peruntukan berkenaan dengan badan pendamai dan galakan kepada penyelesaian atau pendamaian. Ini dapat dilihat dalam seksyen 106 dan seksyen 55 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976. Seksyen 57 (1) (e) Akta tersebut memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “57 Contents of divorce petition

Every petition for divorce shall contain-

…;

…;

…;

…;

the terms of any agreement regarding maintenance of the wife or dependent party and the children, if any, of the marriage, or the division of any assets acquired through the joint efforts of the parties or the sole effort of one party, or where no such agreement has been reached, the petitioner's proposals; and

….” Ini menunjukkan bahawa pendamaian perlu dicari sebelum Mahkamah membenarkan petisyen penceraian. [25] Pada hemat Mahkamah adalah sejajar dengan penghormatan kepada institusi perkahwinan yang tidak boleh ditamatkan sehingga menjejaskan anak-anak hasil perkahwinan tersebut. [26] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga diberi budi bicara untuk menimbangkan supaya rujukan kepada badan pendamai dikecualikan. Ini jelas terdapat dalam seksyen 106 (1) (i) hingga (vi) Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976. Ini bermakna Mahkamah tidak boleh dengan sewenang-wenangnya membenarkan permohonan untuk pengecualian rujukan kepada badan pendamai. [27] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga tidak boleh menolak permohonan sekiranya terdapat keadaan luar biasa dan tidak praktikal untuk rujukan kepada badan pendamai. Misalnya, pasangan yang terlibat tersebut telah menjadi mangsa kepada keganasan rumah tangga atau pasangan itu berada di luar daripada bidang kuasa Mahkamah sehingga menyebabkan kesukaran untuk hadir ke sesi badan pendamai. [28] Frasa yang digunakan di bawah seksyen 106 (1) (vi) Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976 mengunakan frasa exceptional circumstances. Adalah didapati tiada sebarang tafsiran frasa tersebut di bawah Akta tersebut. Oleh yang demikian adalah wajar untuk Mahkamah meneliti tafsiran yang dibuat berkenaan dengan exceptional circumstances seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam Iskandar Coast Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2019] 7 CLJ 143 seperti yang berikut: “[17] Exceptional means "unusual; not typical": see Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edn. Very exceptional circumstances therefore means very unusual circumstances. What amounts to very unusual circumstances must depend on the factual matrix of each case.” [29] Sementara frasa impracticable telah dinyatakan dalam Concise Oxford English Dictionary seperti yang berikut: “Impracticable impossible in practice to do or carry out.” [30] Mahkamah ini perlu berhati-hati dalam menggunakan maksud yang dinyatakan dalam kamus semasa mentafsirkan undang-undang. Ia seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Majlis Daerah Hulu Terengganu v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 2 CLJ 1 seperti yang berikut: “[61] Dictionary meaning can be helpful in interpreting the meaning of the statutory language. However, if a statute deals with a technical or specialised subject (eg, hydroelectric, telecommunications, tax, etc), the words in the statute may have meaning that differ from their ordinary usage.” [31] Penggunaan kamus dalam kes ini bagi memahami perkataan exceptional circumstances dan impracticable adalah wajar dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah. Ini disebabkan ia tidak melibatkan maksud yang berkaitan dengan teknikal atau berkaitan dengan perkara yang khusus. Ia adalah merupakan pengungkapan biasa yang boleh difahami melalui maksud yang dinyatakan dalam kamus Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oleh itu maksud yang dinyatakan dalam kamus itu digunakan dalam kes ini bagi memahami seksyen 106 (1) (vi) Akta tersebut. [32] Apa yang jelas ialah bagi mendapatkan pengecualian untuk dirujuk kepada badan pendamai, Mahkamah haruslah berpuas hati bahawa perkara-perkara yang terdapat di dalam seksyen 106 (1) (i), (ii),

(iii), (iv), (v) dan (vi) Akta tersebut hendaklah dapat ditunjukkan dalam affidavit sokongan bagi permohonan tersebut. Bagi maksud seksyen 106 (1) (vi), Mahkamah ini berpendapat ia tidak memadai dengan hanya menunjukkan keadaan yang tidak luar biasa atau keadaan yang tidak mustahil untuk rujukan ke badan pendamai dikecualikan. Ini adalah disebabkan pematuhan kepada seksyen 106 itu adalah satu yang perlu dipatuhi di mana dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Neduncheliyan Balasubramaniam v. Kohila Shanmugam [1997] 4 CLJ 676 berkenaan dengan keperluan pematuhan kepada seksyen 106 Akta tersebut dalam satu prosiding perceraian seperti yang berikut: “… A court in Malaysia cannot in normal circumstances find, as the judge below purported to do, that a marriage has irretrievably broken down unless the conciliatory body has so certified. Section 106 of the Act is a second reason why the Divorce Petition was totally misconceived. It was obviously filed to achieve some tactical advantage related to the hearing which was due to take place that very day….” [33] Mahkamah juga perlu menimbangkan keadaan sesuatu kes bagi melihat sama ada adalah tidak praktikal atau keadaan luar biasa bagi membolehkan pengecualian rujukan kepada badan pendamai. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes-kes yang diputuskan berkaitan dengan perkara ini dalam kes Kiranjit Kaur Kalwant Singh v. Chandok Narinderpal Singh [2010] 3 CLJ 724, Vivian Lee Shea Li lwn. Sia Chong Liang [2010] 10 CLJ 734, C v A [1998] 4 CLJ 38 dan Chin Pei Lee v. Yap Kin Choong [2010] 4 CLJ 843. [34] Mahkamah ini berpendapat tiada senarai yang tuntas mengenai faktor-faktor yang membolehkan rujukan kepada badan pendamai dikecualikan. Ia bergantung kepada keterangan dan fakta sesuatu kes. Namun ia tidak boleh begitu mudah diberikan sehingga memberi gambaran institusi perkahwinan boleh ditamatkan dengan mudah tanpa diambil tindakan yang sewajarnya bagi mendapatkan pendamaian seperti yang dihasratkan dalam penggubalan seksyen 106 dan keseluruhan peruntukan berkenaan dengan perceraian di bawah Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976. [35] Dalam kes ini alasan yang diberikan oleh Pemohon ialah disebabkan kesukaran Pemohon untuk hadir dari Johor Bahru ke Temerloh untuk menghadiri sesi pendamaian tersebut. Mahkamah ini berpendapat isu jarak antara Johor Bahru dan Temerloh bukanlah keadaan yang luar biasa atau tidak praktikal untuk mengadakan sesi pendamaian tersebut. Malahan dengan kemudahan telekomunikasi ia boleh dilakukan dalam talian mengikut budi bicara badan pendamai. [36] Selain daripada itu alasan bahawa Responden telah terlibat dalam perbuatan zina adalah sesuatu yang tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk membuktikan bahawa perkahwinan tersebut adalah mengalami keretakan yang tidak dapat dipulihkan di bawah seksyen 54 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976. Namun ia harus dibuktikan semasa perbicaraan petisyen kelak. Ia tidak boleh dijadikan alasan untuk mengecualikan kehadiran pihak-pihak di badan pendamai. [37] Pada masa yang sama berdasarkan kepada pandangan-pandangan berkenaan dengan keberkesanan badan pendamai seperti yang diutarakan oleh beberapa orang sarjana undang-undang adalah merupakan cabaran yang perlu disahut oleh badan pendamai tersebut bagi menambahbaik proses pendamaian tersebut. Pada masa yang sama pihak-pihak yang hadir di hadapan badan pendamai itu perlulah mengambil pendirian yang positif dan berusaha bersungguh-sungguh bagi mencapai pendamaian dan mengelakkan perceraian dalam perkahwinan tersebut. Mereka tidak boleh mengganggap badan pendamai adalah satu formaliti yang perlu dilakukan kerana ia diperuntukkan di bawah undang-undang. Jika inilah yang berlaku maka matlamat penggubalan seksyen 106 Akta Membaharui (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976 tersebut pada hemat Mahkamah akan menjadi sia-sia dan institusi perkahwinan tidak membawa makna apabila ia boleh dibubarkan tanpa usaha yang bersungguh-sungguh oleh pasangan untuk menyelamatkan perkahwinan mereka melalui badan pendamai. [38] Berdasarkan kepada penelitian affidavit sokongan, affidavit jawapan dan hujahan pihak-pihak Mahkamah ini berpendapat kes ini tidak sesuai untuk Pemohon dikecualikan daripada dirujuk kepada badan pendamai. Oleh itu permohonan Pemohon adalah ditolak. Bertarikh: 16 hb. Mei 2025 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Pemohon Lim Kim Siong Tetuan S K Song No. 75A (1st Floor), Jalan Mutiara 1/9 Taman Mutiara Mas 81300 Johor Bahru Johor Darul Takzim Bagi Pihak Responden Nurul Syuhada Abdullah Tetuan Rama-Rozi & Associates No. 33, Tingkat 1, Jalan Datuk Bahaman 3 28000 Temerloh Pahang Darul Makmur