Lim Yen Nie v Lim Heng Yee (WA-33-248-05/2021)

To protect the privacy of all parties involved in this petition and in consideration of the sensitivity of the issues at hand, as the presiding judge, the Petitioner and Respondent are anonymised as "YEN" and "YEE" respectively.

The trial was conducted over two (2) days, 22.01.2026 and 23.01.2026. There were two (2) witnesses being the PW and RH themselves for their respective case.

The PW and the RH were legally married on 03.01.2009. A baby girl (the Child) was born for the couple on 25.11.2018.

The PW and the Child left the matrimonial home since 19.08.2020 as the PW claims that the marriage has broken down irretrievably due to the abusive behaviour of the RH.

On 12.05.2021, the PW filed this divorce petition claiming that the marriage has irretrievably broken down pursuant to Section 54(1)(b) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. 3 | P a g e

In this divorce petition filed by the PW, the PW has prayed for reliefs as stated in her petition at Part I paragraphs 130 (I) to (XI).

On the first day of the trial, upon the commencement of the same, the PW’s counsel had informed to the court that the PW’s reliefs as stated at Part I paragraphs 130 (I) to (XI) were no longer being pursued as per her pleadings. Instead, the PW was only pursuing parts of her reliefs mainly relating to the dissolution of the marriage, the guardianship, custody, care and control of the Child and the maintenance of the Child.

The RH’s counsel also confirmed that the RH and PW have agreed as per the followings: i. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down and as such the marriage to be dissolved and for the Decree Nisi to be made absolute immediately; ii. That the PW and the RH will have joint guardianship to the Child; iii. That the PW will have sole custody, care and control of the Child; and iv. That reasonable access to the Child be given to the RH. 4 | P a g e

Therefore, the only matter left to be heard and decided by this court in the PW’s divorce petition was the issue pertaining to the maintenance for the Child.

Be that as it may, the RH wished to continue with the reliefs sought in his cross-petition. As such, the PW and the RH were cross-examined on matters relating to the maintenance of the Child and the reliefs sought by the RH via his cross-petition.

Issues left to be deliberated and determined after the confirmation given by both the counsels for the PW and the RH are as follows: i. The amount to be paid by the RH as maintenance for the Child; and ii. Whether the reliefs sought by the RH in his cross-petition could be allowed. E. FINDINGS OF THE COURT i. The amount to be paid by the RH as maintenance for the

In making her claims for maintenance for the Child, the PW relies on Sections 92 and 93 of the LRA 1976 which read as follows: “Section 92 Duty to maintain children 5 | P a g e Except where an agreement or order of court otherwise provides, it shall be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children, whether they are in his or her custody or the custody of any other person, either by providing them with such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable having regard to his or her means and station in life or by paying the cost thereof.” “Section 93 provides:

The court may at any time order a man to pay maintenance for the benefit of his child:

if he has refused or neglected reasonably to provide for the child;

if he has deserted his wife and the child is in her charge;

during the pendency of any matrimonial proceedings; or

when making or subsequent to the making of an order placing the child in the custody of any other person.

The court shall have the corresponding power to order a woman to pay or contribute towards the maintenance of her child where it is satisfied that having regard to her means it is reasonable so to order.

An order under subsection (1) or (2) may direct payment to the person having custody or care and control of the child or trustees for the child.”

The PW was granted an Interim Order on 25.06.2025 where the RH was ordered to pay RM1,800.00 to the PW for the maintenance of the Child.

While the RH prays for the sum of RM1,800.00 granted via the Interim Order to be maintained, the PW on the other hand prays for the sum of RM4,600.00 as monthly maintenance sum for the Child and an additional sum of RM1,165.00 for the costs of co-curriculum activities incurred for the Child. This amount sought is not inclusive of the Child’s education costs. 6 | P a g e

The PW also prays for the RH to bear the costs of the Child’s education fees where she is currently enrolled and studying i.e. at Taylor’s International School amounting to RM31,860.00 for year 3.

It is statutorily mandated that fathers are responsible for the primary maintenance of the child of the marriage, while mothers' obligation to maintain the child is secondary and contingent upon their financial resources (Section 93 of the LRA 1976). The emphasis of this obligation has also been established by a plethora of cases. In this instance, the RH has not declined to adhere to his duty to provide for the Child.

While the RH has not declined to pay child maintenance, it is evident that the amount being claimed by the PW is the subject of dispute. It is trite that the court must consider the Child's needs and the financial resources of the paying parent or parents when determining the maintenance amount.

In this case, it is argued by the RH that the sum which the PW is claiming is exorbitant and unsubstantiated. I concur with the RH on this as the sum of RM4,600.00 claimed by the PW as maintenance for the Child excluding education costs was not substantiated nor supported by any contemporaneous documents such as invoices or receipts. Furthermore, I find that the sum claimed to be costs of maintaining the Child does not add up to be accurate even if I were to take it at face value. 7 | P a g e

As for the additional sum for extra co-curriculum activities claimed by the PW, this amount too was not substantiated with any contemporaneous documents such as invoices or receipts. The RH also raised his doubts as to whether the Child is even attending these classes at the current time.

Since there are no invoices or receipts, the PW has failed to provide any proof to substantiate the costs allegedly incurred for the Child’s co-curriculum activities, this amount claimed cannot be allowed. Furthermore, the sum of RM1,165.00 seem to also include healthcare amounting to RM450.00 per month.

Based on all the evidences before this court, it is my considered view that the PW has failed to substantiate the amount claimed for the Child’s maintenance. In the absence of supporting documents to justify these expenses, the sum claimed is not based on the Child’s needs.

As such, it is my considered view that the RH shall pay RM2,000.00 per month as maintenance with an increase of 5% every two (2) years (compound) till the Child completes her 1st tertiary degree.

As for the Child’s education costs, currently enrolled at Taylor’s International School, Kuala Lumpur, it is admitted by the PW that the said enrolment was not consulted with the RH and that there are other schools which cost much less comparatively. 8 | P a g e

The reason given by the PW as to why she enrolled the Child in this school is because the RH’s sister was also sent to this school by the RH’s father. She also testified in court that since the Child is born in a ‘wealthy Chinese family’ she is entitled to attend a school such as the one she is enrolled in. (see Encl. 95 @ pg. 109, line 33 to pg. 110, line 12)

Since affordability is not an issue for both the parties, it is only natural to think that both the PW and the RH have the means to bear the costs of the Child’s education fees. As such, based on the evidences before this court and the fact that the Child is already enrolled and attending school, it is my considered view that the PW 9 | P a g e and the RH are to bear the education, medical, insurance and co-curriculum activities costs of the Child equally.

In the event, the parties wish to change the Child’s school, whichever school the Child is to attend has to be agreed by both parties as the costs for the school fees is to be shared equally. In deciding the school for the Child, it is advised that the parties are to take into consideration the best interest of the Child when affordability is not an issue. ii. Whether the reliefs sought by the RH in his reply to the petition are relevant and allowed in this proceeding.

In the RH’s reply to the petition he had prayed as per stated in paragraph 164. However, since the issues pertaining to the dissolution of the marriage, guardianship, custody, care and control and maintenance have been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs above, the other prayers which the RH had maintained in his cross-examination are as per stated at paragraph 164 (d) to (k).

During the trial the RH’s Counsel had cross examined the PW on issues relating to the Thye Heng Undertakers. It is the RH’s position that the PW’s inclusion in the Thye Heng Undertakers was for convenience only and that she had not contributed financially to the business and that she has no beneficial interest in the same.

It must be realised that whilst the RH is of the view that the Thye Heng Undertakers is family business belonging to his parents and 10 | P a g e as such it is not a matrimonial asset, the PW has also withdrawn her claims in this petition all her claims involving the Thye Heng Undertakers as she too is of the view that the issue relating to Thye Heng Undertakers is not matrimonial asset. (see Encl. 95 @pg. 133)

As both parties have declared that Thye Heng Undertakers is not a matrimonial asset, I am of the view that there is no necessity for this court to consider the RH’s prayers in relation to Thye Heng Undertakers in this proceedings. Hence, the declarations sought by the RH in relation to Thye Heng Undertakers are dismissed (Para 164 (d) & (e)).

As to the issues relating to the five (5) joint accounts and the allegation of the PW withdrawing, utilising or otherwise appropriating monies from all these five (5) joint accounts, although the PW has decided to withdraw her claims relating to these 11 | P a g e accounts, the RH insisted to address the issues relating to these accounts i.e. that these accounts are not matrimonial assets as the funds in them do not belong to the PW. According to the RH, the PW was only added in as joint account holder of these accounts in order to facilitate the transactions relating to these accounts.

It is the RH’s position that this inclusion of the PW was due to the fact that the RH was unwell and not in a position to manage these accounts and the payments which needed to be made using these accounts.

However, during cross examination, the RH had confirmed that some of the transactions i.e. by online transfer and by way of cheque issuance was made within his knowledge and or that he was the recipient of the payments made. He also identified that the payments were made for purposes relating to household matters, business expenses, upkeep of family (i.e. for himself, the PW, the Child, suppliers, contractors) and that they were all used for legitimate purpose. (see Encl. 95 @ pg. 140) 12 | P a g e

There was also an allegation made by the RH that the legal fees paid to a legal firm by the PW using the joint account was done for her own benefit and not for the work done by the legal firm. However, there was no denial by the RH that he had been the one who had engaged the legal firm to process the legal work involving the RH’s deceased father’s will.

The RH also made allegations that the fees paid to the legal firm was in actual fact monies meant for the PW directed through the legal firm i.e. being syphoned from the joint accounts. However, this allegation was neither substantiated nor supported with any evidence before this court. As such, it is the considered view of this court that the RH has failed substantiate his allegations with any 13 | P a g e evidence other than mere logical arguments. Hence, the prayers at para 164 (g), (h) and (i) of the RH’s cross petition are dismissed.

The RH has also failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the PW does not have any beneficial interest in the joint accounts as there were deposits of funds belonging to the PW in the joint accounts and the PW was one of the signatories of the accounts. As there are no claims that these joint accounts are matrimonial assets by either parties, I am of the view that this proceeding is not the forum to deal with the issue of whether the PW has any beneficial interest in these accounts or not since both parties claim that these accounts are not matrimonial assets. Therefore, I dismiss the RH’s prayer at para 164 (f) of the cross petition.

I conclude as follows: i. The marriage between the PW and the RH has irretrievably broken down and the same is dissolved. The Decree Nisi is made absolute immediately; ii. The PW and RH have joint Guardianship of the Child; iii. Sole Custody, Care and Control of the Child is given to the PW; iv. Reasonable access to the Child be given to the RH; 14 | P a g e v. Maintenance of RM2,000 per month for the Child with an increase of 5% every two (2) years to be paid by the RH to the PW on or before 7th of every month; vi. The PW and the RH are to bear the education, medical, insurance and co-curriculum activities costs of the Child equally; vii. The RH’s claims at paragraphs 164 (d) to (k) of the cross petition are dismissed; and viii. Costs of RM30,000 subject to allocatur fee to be paid to the PW by RH. DATED: 14th JULY 2026 Signed ----------------------------------- (SUMATHI A/P MURUGIAH) Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur Counsel: For the Petitioner – Mr. Chan Ding Chong; Messrs. Gurmit Sodhi Chambers For the Respondent – Ms. Malathi Natarajan with Mr. Farith Emier; Messrs. Lim Khim Huei & Partners.