Suzanah Rebecca Rajan v Ong Ham Boon @ Ong Hang Boon (BA-33-569-11/2021)

ONG HAM BOOM @ ONG HANG BOON

LIM CHIN LIP (NO. K/P : 790617-07-5141) …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN

The Petitioner Wife (PW) filed a petition for judicial separation against the Respondent Husband (RH) seeking inter alia maintenance for herself and the 2 children of the marriage, division of matrimonial home assets and damages against the 2nd Respondent for alleged adultery with the RH which she claimed had caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

The RH filed a cross-petition dated 16.2.2022 and subsequently amended on 28.4.2022 seeking to dissolve the marriage between them.

The JSP was premised on sections 53 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) while the Amended cross-petition was filed pursuant to section 54(1)(b)

The Petition proceeded to full trial and was concluded after 3 non-consecutive days of hearing.

The matter was fixed for decision on 17.4.2025.

On 26.3.2025, prior to the delivery of the Court’s decision, the RH filed a Notice of Discontinuance in Enclosure 211 to discontinue the cross-petition filed against the PW.

Before pronouncement of the decree and before the Court delivered its decision, both parties informed the Court that they had no objection to their marriage being dissolved and that a Decree Nisi be granted in place of a pronouncement of Judicial Separation. In view of the parties common position and in exercise of the Court’s powers under sections 53 and 54 LRA, 1976, this Court granted a Decree Nisi dissolving the marriage between the PW and the RH and ordered that the Decree Nisi be made absolute immediately.

Consequently, the Court struck out the cross petition in accordance with the Notice of Discontinuance filed by the RH in Encl 211. Salient Background Facts 9. The PW aged 60 and the RH aged 59 respectively at the time of the trial were married on 7.10.2001. They have two children.

The eldest child a daughter born on 2.5.2002 and their son born on 28.4.2005 are presently pursuing tertiary education in Melbourne Australia.

The marriage deteriorated amid allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour of the parties.

Prior to the commencement of the trial the PW applied for interim maintenance where the High Court had granted interim orders in her favour, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered the RH to pay spousal maintenance of RM7000 per month to the PW taking effect from 10.2.2023. The RH has not complied with the maintenance order.

The PW also applied for disclosure of matrimonial assets and for preservation orders, including orders relating to the return of funds withdrawn by the RH from joint accounts without her consent. This Court allowed the disclosure and preservation application. The orders were affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal. The RH did not comply with these orders.

The PW also applied for disclosure of matrimonial assets and for preservation orders including orders relating to the return of funds withdrawn by the RH from their joint accounts without her consent. This Court allowed the disclosure and preservation application. The orders were affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal. The RH did not comply with these Orders.

Thereafter, the RH sought a second amendment to his pleadings. That application was dismissed by this Court.

Committal proceedings were subsequently commenced against the RH for non-compliance with the High Court’s and the Court of Appeal’s orders relating to discovery and preservation of matrimonial assets. The RH was found guilty of contempt on 5.11.2024.

At the trial,3 witnesses gave evidence, namely the PW, RH and the 2nd Respondent.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court found that the PW had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the RH had committed adultery with the 2nd Respondent. The PW’s claim against the 2nd Respondent was dismissed with costs.

However, this Court was satisfied that the marriage had broken down irretrievably due to the RH’s unreasonable behaviour, such that the PW could not reasonably be expected to live with him.

The RH is aggrieved with the decision of this Court and has filed an appeal. The Issues for determination 21. The principal issues requiring determination were :

whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down by reason of the RH’s behaviour such that the PW could not reasonably be expected to live with him;

spousal maintenance;

maintenance for the children;

the children’s educational expenses; and 5. division of matrimonial assets. Contentions and Findings of the Court Unreasonable behavior and irretrievable breakdown 22. The PW’s case was that the marriage gradually and irretrievably broke down due to the RH’s conduct throughout the marriage, including an admitted extramarital affair in the early years of the marriage, which the PW forgave in the interests of the welfare of the children and the stability of the family.

The PW further alleged that in early 2021, the RH made an unsolicited admission that he was in an ongoing relationship with another woman. This admission was not accompanied by remorse, nor by any intention to end the relationship. The RH sent multiple WhatsApp messages to the PW asserting that he was in a relationship with another woman and wished to continue it, while also making assurances that he would still support the PW and the children financially. One such message stated inter alia : “ok. I was depressed since few years and met someone late last year. I hope you are not angry with me. I will still perform my duty as the father to our kids. I will still fully support you and the kids financially”

The PW states that she was deeply hurt and distressed by these admissions. She wished to ascertain the identity of the woman but felt fearful of confrontation, as she knew the RH to have a bad temper and she and the children were financially dependent on him at the material time. She did not want it to affect the children’s emotional well being as well.

In the message exchanges, when the PW asked for the identity of the other woman, the RH responded : “she is from Penang … Don’t worry as I won’t marry her. We have an agreement that we live as companion only. “you don’t know her and yes she is married and divorce” “she is not working for me. She is working in a KL in Developer office” “please don’t ask too many questions as I just ask for some privacy.”

The RH also instructed that the children ought not to be told. He said : “better don’t. I don’t want them to worry and affect their studies”

He further assured the PW that he would continue to provide financially for both her and the children, stating : “I will keep reserve funding for the kids until they finish their Uni. Also I will prepare to get some money to pay off the Melbourne house” “then I will transfer the house to your name”

Notwithstanding the PW’s efforts to shield the children from the conflict, the children eventually confronted the RH about his absence from the matrimonial home. The PW’s evidence was that the RH reacted aggressively towards both the PW and the children, belittled them, threatened that they would be “on the streets” without him, accused them of ingratitude, and warned that he would “teach them all a lesson” for questioning him.

From that period onwards, the RH became openly hostile and unreasonable towards the PW and the children and made it clear that he would withdraw financial support to them. The contemporaneous WhatsApp messages corroborate, in substance, the PW’s narration of threats and intimidation.

During cross-examination, the RH admitted sending the impugned messages but attempted to justify his conduct by alleging the PW had been “nagging” him. No credible evidence was produced to support that allegation. The message trail itself does not support the RH’s explanation and, in material respects, contradicts it.

The RH did not dispute that he had sent sexually explicit messages to the 2nd Respondent. His explanation, supported by the 2nd Respondent, was that such communications were “normal” between them and that they regarded one another merely as “brother and sister”. The PW also adduced evidence that the RH purchased gifts for the 2nd Respondent and attended social functions with her; photographs exhibiting their attendance at various events were tendered. The RH did not dispute the existence or authenticity of those photographs, though he denied adultery.

In addition, the PW relied on threats and abusive language by the RH as evidenced in the WhatsApp correspondences (B5, pp 1-9). Some of those threats are as follows :

A threat to cut the telephone lines, as evidenced in the WhatsApp correspondences between the PW and the RH at pages 1–9 of Exhibit B5;

(ii) A threat to stop paying household bills and to ensure that both the PW and the children would be left on the streets if they questioned him about his affair.

There are additional instances of verbal threats by the RH, also documented in the text messages exchanged between the RH and the PW at pages 1–9 of Exhibit B5, as follows :

“…I have told you, I will take back everything since you being so arrogant with me.’

(ii) “see how arrogant are you? The more you arrogant, the more I will teach you a lesson”

(iii) “Gila ppl like you teach my kids to hate me. You don’t deserve anything form me”

(iv) “people like you so ungrateful. You full of hatred and brainwash my kids to hate me. What you get? Now what you get? Now I will stop all finance to you. Let you take care of the kids.”

“you have no brain and that’s why need a lawyer”

(vi) “you teach my kids not to reply or take my calls. Since you do like this, I will let you feel the same medicine”

(vii) “I have affair or not, you shouldn’t involve my kids. You make them to hate me. Now I leave them to you to take care. Find your own money and live on your own”

(viii) “this is what you ask for. I warn you many times not to test my patience. You try to show your arrogant. Now you face your own consequences”

(ix) “if you become more arrogant again, I may terminate the unifi’

“this is not a threat but I will do it if I have to”

(xi) “so you better think again. The more trouble you create, I will do the same to you.”

(xii) “I warn you before don’t test my patience”

(xiii) “so try again and see what happen”

(xiv) “I don’t need a maid like you to teach me what to do”

(xv) “you don’t deserve to be call my wife. Im ashamed of having a wife like you to teach my kids to go against their father”

(xvi) “again, I repeat, the more you want to argue, I will cut the unifi tomorrow’ so don’t try to mess with me”

(xvii) “you do more harm, I will stop all the privilege’s to the family”

(xviii) “so wake up and don’t talk nonsense again”

In addition to directing threats at the PW in these text messages, the RH also spoke to the children in a harsh and degrading manner, telling them that they “can eat shit.”

Having considered the evidence in its totality, this Court accepted the PW’s account as credible. I found her to be consistent and convincing witness. She did not evade questions and was earnest in her evidence. Her testimony was supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, in particular the WhatsApp messages, which provided objective corroboration of her narrative and undermined the RH’s attempt to characterise his conduct as justified.

The RH’s evidence, on the other hand, was unconvincing and, at times, internally inconsistent and convoluted. He sought to portray his conduct as reasonable while shifting blame onto the PW. However, contemporaneous messages reveal repeated threats, admissions of infidelity, and the use of abusive language directed at the PW and the children. His demeanour before the Court was defensive and dismissive. During cross-examination, his explanations shifted repeatedly, thereby casting further doubt on his credibility. What was consistently apparent throughout his testimony was his disdain and hostility towards the PW. In light of these factors, this Court treats the RH’s evidence with considerable caution and accords it limited weight on material matters.

In determining whether a marriage has broken down irretrievably, the Court is guided by section 54 of the LRA. The PW relied principally on the ground that the RH behaved in such a way that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.

This Court applied the test in Joseph Jeganathan v Rosaline Joseph [1989] 3 MLJ 106, namely whether a right-thinking person, considering all the circumstances and the personalities of the parties, would conclude that the respondent behaved in such a way that the petitioning spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with him.

On the facts before this Court, the RH’s conduct comprising admissions of an ongoing relationship, persistent verbal and emotional abuse, threats to deprive the PW and children of shelter and sustenance, and intimidation amounted to behaviour so unreasonable that the PW could not reasonably be expected to remain in the marriage. While this Court found that adultery was not proved on a balance of probabilities, the RH’s conduct and admissions, viewed cumulatively, were plainly incompatible with the marital relationship and amounted to unreasonable behaviour within the meaning of section 54(1)(b) LRA.

In the circumstances, and having regard to the totality of the evidence, this Court is satisfied that the PW has established on a balance of probabilities that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. It is therefore just and equitable for a decree of divorce to be granted.

The PW sought spousal maintenance of RM15,000 per month for 15 years, payable either as a lump sum or, alternatively, as a monthly payment for life.

In determining the issue of maintenance for a wife, this Court was guided by Sections 77 and 78 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA”), which are reproduced below for ease of reference. “Section 77 – Power for court to order maintenance of spouse

The court may order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife -

during the course of any matrimonial proceedings;

when granting or subsequent to the grant of a decree of divorce or judicial separation;

if, after a decree declaring her presumed to be dead, she is found to be alive.

The court shall have the corresponding power to order a woman to pay maintenance to her husband or former husband where he is incapacitated, wholly or partially, from earning a livelihood by reason of mental or physical injury or ill-health, and the court is satisfied that having regard to her means it is reasonable so to order. Section 78 – Assessment of maintenance In determining the amount of any maintenance to be paid by a man to his wife or former wife or by a woman to her husband or former husband, the court shall base its assessment primarily on the means and needs of the parties, regardless of the proportion such maintenance bears to the income of the husband or wife as the case may be, but shall have regard to the degree of responsibility which the court apportions to each party for the breakdown of the marriage.”

The applicable principles have been discussed in authorities including Sreedevi Naidu a/p T Sree Ramalu Naidu v Eelasegaran a/l T Nadarajah & Anor [2016] 6 CLJ 538 and Koay Cheng Eng v Linda Herawati Santoso [2008] 4 CLJ 105.

In Sreedevi Naidu, the Court of Appeal held as follows : “What is needed to be decided now is the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife. It is an established principle that in deciding what amount of maintenance the husband should pay the wife, the court must take into consideration the means and needs of the parties. In assessing the means and needs of the parties the court has always had regard to the duration of the marriage, whether there were any children of the marriage, the age of the parties, whether the husband had financially supported the wife during the duration of their marriage, the parties earning capabilities and whether the divorce would have affected the husband's position financially. [26] We are of the view that with the standard and cost of living of the respondent, the sum awarded is justifiable. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is to be placed in a position to enjoy the same standard of living as she had during the existence of the marriage”

In the present case, the PW has sought maintenance in the sum of RM15,000 per month based on what she asserts are her reasonable needs, as particularised in Question and Answer 20 of her witness statement. She adduced a breakdown of her monthly expenses as seen in the tabulation below : ANNUAL EXPENSES from bank statements AUD (yearly) Cell phone charges/phone @ AUD100pm 1200 Insurance for vehicle 1500 Transport – Fuel & Repairs for vehicles, toll & uber 3000 Travel to and from Malaysia including visa fees 4500 Groceries @ $1500pm 18,000 Wardrobe 2000 Personal care/pharmaceuticals 6000 Dental 700 Medical, health insurance, physiotherapy 2000 Eye care 500 Emergency Health Care 10000 BUPA Insurance 1500 Internet connection 900 Utilities (gas, electricity, water) 3800 Rates and Trash Collection 2000 Property tax 700 Homeowners Insurance 1150 Home cleaning supplies 600 Pest Control 500 Entertainment & Dining 2400 Vacations 8000 Fitness 600 Christmas, Birthday gifts 500 Home repairs, maintenance 1500 AUD73,550 per annum AUD6130 (RM18,400) (per month)

The PW states that the amounts reflected in the above table are supported by documentary evidence, including bank statements, which substantiate the expenses incurred and relied upon in support of her claim for maintenance.

Having carefully examined the claims and the expenses advanced by the PW, this Court is of the view that the amount claimed appears excessive and not wholly justified. It must be borne in mind that an award for spousal maintenance must be assessed on the basis of the “means and needs” of the parties, and not on their “means and wants.” Neither was there any guaranteed continuity in the same exact standard of living after a divorce.

Further, the maintenance claim has been presented in Australian currency, notwithstanding that the PW is presently residing in Malaysia. The Court is only obliged to assess and quantify any maintenance payable based on the cost and standard of living in Malaysia, and not on living expenses abroad. There is no evidence before this Court to suggest that the PW intends to relocate to Australia.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the PW is nonetheless entitled to spousal maintenance to enable her to move on with the remaining years of her life as smoothly and peacefully as possible. I have taken into consideration that the marriage between the parties was a long and enduring one. The parties’ civil marriage was registered on 7.10.2001, which is a period of almost 24 years. If calculated from the date of their tea ceremony on 26.11.1995 then the relationship spans approximately 29 years. The RH’s confession to having an intimate relationship with another woman was the pivotal moment in their relationship which ultimately led the PW to seek judicial separation. The RH’s conduct led to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

The PW bore the RH two children during the marriage. She is presently over 60 years of age, while the RH is younger at 59. For the greater part of the marriage, the PW was a full-time housewife, singlehandedly devoting herself to the care of the children and the maintenance of the household. During this time the RH pursued his entrepreneurial business activities and achieved considerable success as evidenced by the number of assets accumulated over the years. The PW also rendered assistance in the RH’s business ventures. In her testimony, the PW stated that she is now suffering from several medical ailments associative with advancing age.

Due to these medical conditions and her advanced age, the PW says that she is unable to be employed and hence has no realistic earning capacity. In these circumstances, and given her present age and state of health, the RH cannot now act so callously as to abandon the PW entirely.

Throughout the marriage, the RH was the sole breadwinner, a fact candidly admitted by the RH. He provided the family with a relatively luxurious and comfortable standard of living, including a substantial home in USJ. He paid for all household and family expenses, including the PW’s personal expenses. The following facts are undisputed and were expressly admitted by the RH :

the PW and the children resided in a large double-storey home in USJ provided by the RH;

(ii) the RH paid all household bills and outgoings, including water, electricity, sewerage, telephone charges, as well as all family expenses such as the children’s school fees, groceries, outings, and holidays both within Malaysia and abroad;

(iii) when the family migrated to Australia in 2015, the RH purchased a home for the family in Truganina, Melbourne, and continued to bear all family expenses, including school fees, groceries, utilities, housing loan repayments, the purchase of a motor vehicle for the PW’s use, and all migration-related expenses;

(iv) the RH paid for family holidays and travel to, inter alia, China, Thailand, London, Eastern Europe, India, Australia, and various destinations within Malaysia;

the RH and the PW maintained a joint HSBC bank account, to which the PW had unrestricted access for the purpose of meeting personal and family expenses; and

(vi) the RH purchased insurance policies for himself, the PW, and the children.

Having regard to the foregoing, it is neither realistic nor credible for the RH to now suggest that he lacks the financial means to maintain the PW or to support the children’s education. The standard of living enjoyed by the family throughout the marriage was clearly well above that of an ordinary or average household. This historical pattern of expenditure is a strong and objective indicator of the RH’s true earning capacity and financial resources, and it directly informs this Court’s assessment of both spousal and child maintenance.

The PW testified that she is presently burdened with liabilities, including the housing loan for the Truganina property in Australia and arrears which, by early January 2025, the bank allegedly required to be settled immediately failing which she will risk losing the property.

In addition, the PW testified that the motor vehicle she had been using was repossessed as a direct consequence of the RH’s deliberate failure to service the hire purchase instalments.

The PW testified that she has been compelled to obtain personal loans from family members and even pawn jewellery to meet basic needs. She further testified that she could not afford to travel to Australia to see the children.

Initially, the PW was able to rely on funds from the parties’ joint HSBC account to sustain herself. However, this source of funds was subsequently terminated by the RH, further exacerbating her financial hardship.

The RH has since taken the position that he lacks the financial means to support the PW, claiming retirement and no longer in control over the companies he previously owned. However, under cross-examination, he admitted that he continues to receive income from various sources.

In divorce proceedings, the parties are under a duty to exercise the utmost good faith and to make full and frank disclosure of all relevant financial information. This Court finds that the RH has deliberately failed to do so. He has not produced complete bank statements, credit card statements, or particulars of his foreign bank accounts, thereby preventing the Court from accurately assessing his true financial position.

To compound matters, the RH admitted that his income tax returns do not reflect his actual income and that he continues to receive foreign-sourced income from Hong Kong and Australia which he has not declared. In evaluating the RH’s testimony, it is apparent that he seeks to minimize and resist the PW’s claims. He was not forthright, particularly concerning his finances and assets. He clearly was very reluctant to disclose the full extent of his wealth. His lack of transparency raised doubts about his credibility and suggested an attempt to downplay his financial capabilities. In these circumstances, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against the RH regarding his earning capacity and financial means, including the inference that he possesses a very substantial monthly income sufficient to maintain the PW and the children.

Where discrepancies exist and a witness is shown to evade full and frank disclosure, it is reasonable for the Court to presume that the documents if produced would show that the party had the financial capacity to meet his obligations. Such conduct strongly indicates an unwillingness to fulfil his duties as a husband and father. The Court is entitled and indeed duty-bound to treat such a witness as unreliable and to approach his evidence with caution and suspicion. This principle is well established in law and has been affirmed in numerous authorities.

In Mohd Faisal bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor [2021] 10 MLJ 458, the learned judge reaffirmed this position and cited with approval earlier authorities : “[39] In Khoon Chye Hin v Public Prosecutor [1961] 1 MLJ 105 it was ruled : …If a witness demonstrably tells lies on one or two points and then it is clear that he is not a reliable witness and as a matter of prudence the rest of his evidence must be scrutinized with great care and indeed with suspicion.”

This principle is equally applicable in civil proceedings, particularly where a party has failed to make full and frank disclosure of matters peculiarly within his knowledge. In Sreedevi Naidu a/p T Sree Ramalu Naidu v Eelasegaran a/l T Nadarajah & Anor [2016] 6 CLJ 538, the Court of Appeal held : “[32] Even though the 1st respondent was served with a notice to produce relating to his income and other financial information, the 1st respondent has refused to produce any documents. He has even refused to produce his EPF statement; the said non-disclosures are material non-disclosures relating to the 1st respondent’s financial situation. The material non-disclosure indicates that the 1st respondent is deliberate, dishonest and lacking bona fides. Meanwhile, it is not seriously disputed that the 1st respondent is also supporting an illegitimate child, a mistress, his mother and a lavish lifestyle of up to RM10,986.00 a month. In all the circumstances, we think that the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference with regard to the 1st respondent’s income and other financial information on account of his failure to make full and frank disclosure (s 114(g) Evidence Act 1950).”

Applying the above principles to the present case, this Court finds that the RH’s repeated falsehoods, inconsistencies, and material non-disclosures regarding his income and financial affairs render him an unreliable witness. His evidence must therefore be treated with considerable caution, and the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against him in respect of matters which he has failed or refused to disclose fully and frankly.

Upon a careful evaluation of the evidence adduced, the applicable law, and all relevant documents placed before the Court, the Court finds that the PW is entitled to monthly maintenance and to continued financial support from the RH. This finding is arrived at having due regard to the guidance laid down in established legal authorities, in particular Dr Shameni Pillai PB Rajendran v Dr S Arulselvam Sanggilly & Anor [2011] 6 CLJ 782 and ACH v PAY [2023] CLJU 223. These authorities emphasise that the Court must take into account, inter alia, the following factors : “(i) the income, earning capacity, property, or financial resources that each party presently possesses or is likely to possess in the foreseeable future;

(ii) the financial needs, obligations, and responsibilities that each party currently or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(iii) the standard of living enjoyed by the family prior to the breakdown of the marriage;

(iv) the age of each party and the duration of their marriage;

any existing health, physical, or mental disability of the parties;

(vi) the respective contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family; and

(vii) the duration of the marriage.”

Taking into account the aforesaid relevant factors, and after a close examination of the itemised expenses provided by the PW in Question 20 of her witness statement, a thorough mathematical analysis demonstrates that the substantiated claims amount to approximately RM7,000. This figure is sufficient to enable the PW to sustain a reasonable and satisfactory standard of living consistent with the lifestyle she was accustomed to during the marriage. In my evaluation, this sum is neither unreasonable nor excessive, especially considering that the RH had previously assumed responsibility for all her personal and household expenses prior to the deterioration of the marital relationship.

Furthermore, the sum of RM7,000 was also the amount quantified and awarded by the Court of Appeal on 5 March 2024, following the PW’s appeal, which resulted in an increase of spousal maintenance from RM2,000 to RM7,000 per month.

Taking into account the duration of the marriage, the ages of the parties, the PW’s health and earning capacity, the marital standard of living and the RH’s non-disclosures and non-compliance with maintenance orders, this Court assessed a reasonable monthly sum at RM7000 consistent with the figure previously ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The next issue to be considered is whether a lump sum payment is warranted in this case. I have no hesitation in accepting the PW’s reasons and justification for spousal maintenance to be paid as a one-time lump sum. In my assessment, particularly in light of the RH’s conduct and his continued and wilful non-compliance with court orders including his defiance of the Court of Appeal’s decision on spousal maintenance delivered in March 2025 hence a lump sum award is appropriate.

Moreover, a lump sum award would facilitate a clean break between the parties and ensure the PW’s financial security, free from the uncertainty and anxiety associated with recurring payments and the need to initiate execution proceedings. I further find that the RH would not suffer any unfair burden or undue financial strain as a result of such an order, as he would in any event be relieved of the obligation to make ongoing monthly payments.

Accordingly, the Court orders spousal maintenance in the sum of RM7,000 per month for a period of 15 years, to be paid as a lump sum amounting to RM1,260,000. The duration of 15 years is fixed after taking into consideration the average life expectancy of women in Malaysia, which is approximately 75 years, based on data published by the Department of Statistics Malaysia. Given that the PW is presently 60 years old, her remaining life expectancy may reasonably be assessed at a further 15 years. This approach is consistent with section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, which provides that an order for spousal maintenance shall subsist until death or remarriage. Maintenance for the Children 72. Both children are pursuing their tertiary education in Australia.

It is trite that every parent has the duty to maintain his or her child regardless of who has custody. Section 92 lays down the duty to maintain children : “Section 92 - Duty to maintain children 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 LRA lays the responsibility on the man to provide maintenance for his children : “Section 93 - Power for court to order maintenance for children

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.”

At the time of delivery of the decision, the children were aged 23 and 20 respectively. Although both have attained the age of 18, section 95 LRA expressly extends the duration of maintenance orders until completion of further or higher education : “Section 95 - Duration of orders for custody and maintenance Except where an order for custody or maintenance of a child is expressed to be for any shorter period or where any such order has been rescinded, it shall expire on the attainment by the child of the age of eighteen years or where the child is under physical or mental disability, or is pursuing further or higher education or training, on the ceasing of such disability or completion of such further or higher education or training, whichever is the later.”

The RH had maintained the children prior to the deterioration of the marriage and admitted in his pleadings that he had paid their living and educational expenses and was willing to continue bearing their educational expenses. The PW’s evidence, however, was that the RH ceased or intermittently paid for the expenses after proceedings began and the PW had to meet those expenses through loans from family.

Having found that the RH has the means, and having also drawn an adverse inference from his non-disclosures, this Court was satisfied that the RH remains obliged to maintain the children and to meet reasonable educational expenses until completion of their first tertiary degrees, consistent with the lifestyle the children previously enjoyed.

This Court also accepted that the RH had specifically promised the PW that he would bear all expenses for both children until completion of their first tertiary degrees. He must therefore be held to his word. The Court applied the principle that a party cannot reprobate what he has approbated, as reflected in Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin [1997] 1 CLJ 375, and as affirmed in S Kalawathy S Sivapragasam v Kajendaran Muniandy [2024] CLJU 727.

In Ching Seng Woah, the husband had agreed, in his evidence-in-chief, to bear his daughters’ educational expenses until they obtained their first degree. The Court of Appeal held that the husband could not be permitted to reprobate what he had approbated.

In the circumstances, this Court orders that the RH shall pay and continue to pay the children’s maintenance until they complete their first tertiary degrees. Having carefully examined the evidence adduced and taking into account the children’s reasonable needs, this Court directs that the RH shall pay monthly child maintenance in the sum of RM3,500 for each child. This amount is fair, reasonable, and sufficient to meet the children’s daily living and subsistence expenses while they pursue their studies.

In addition, this Court orders that the RH shall bear the full costs of the children’s tertiary education. Matrimonial Assets 82. The following are some of the matrimonial assets which, to the best of the PW’s knowledge, are owned by the RH :

the matrimonial home at 27 Jalan USJ 11/2C, 47620 Subang Jaya held under HS(D) 56486 No. PT 14696 Mukim Damansara, Daerah Petaling,

(ii) A-27-2 Kondominium Tinggian Titiwangsa;

(iii) F-11-11-13, Blok F Pangsapuri Angsana, Persiaran Subang Mewah;

(iv) No 3 Blok D, Lot 757, Prime Subang Light Industrial Park, Jalan Subang 3, 47500 Subang Jaya held under Hakmilik Strata GM147/M2/1/62 and GM/147/M2/1/82 Lot 757 Pekan Subang Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor;

Lot 17 Jalan Industri 1/7, Tmn Perindustrian USJ 1 held under HSD 255287 PT 32970, Pekan Penaga, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor;

(vi) GRN HM15288 Lot 3991 Mukim Rantau Daerah Seremban (sold and the proceeds of sale used by the First Respondent);

(vii) Lot 5 HSK Industrial Centre, Jalan Bundusan, Penampang CL Title 215349689 (sold and the proceeds of sale used by the First Respondent);

(viii) 16 Jalan USJ Heights, Jalan 3/2C (sold and proceeds of sale used by the First Respondent);

(ix) Shares in Macrolink Auto Center Sdn Bhd (sold and proceeds of sale used by First Respondent);

Companies solely owned or under the control of the First Respondent including Macrolink Express (M) Sdn Bhd (200601030370), Macrolink E-Commerce

(M) Sdn Bhd (200001009281), Macrolink Express East Malaysia Sdn Bhd, Macrolink Express (Miri) Sdn Bhd, Macrolink Express (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd

(201101016546), Macrolink Express (Sabah) Sdn Bhd (200401004323), ZTO, Triwulan Sdn Bhd

(201001025978), Macrolink EasyGo (M) Sdn Bhd

(202101025334), Cardan Network (M) Sdn Bhd

(202001019176), Casamawar Sdn Bhd

(200201027106), Penske Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd, Digital Parcel Store (M) Sdn Bhd (199601000162);

(xi) Macrolink Solutions Pty Ltd (registered in Australia);

(xii) Aroma Spices Kitchen Pty Ltd (registered in Australia);

(xiii) KMX Link Ltd (registered in Belize);

(xiv) Mercedes Benz E230 No WUV 882 used by the First Respondent;

(xv) Proton X70 No VCQ 2055 used by the Petitioner;

(xvi) Perodua Ativa BRG 9693;

(xvii) Membership in Berjaya Vacation Club;

(xviii) Bank accounts in Malaysia including OCBC Premier, HSBC Premier, CIMB, RHB, Maybank;

(xix) EPF savings of the First Respondent;

(xx) EPF savings of the Petitioner (RM327,000 withdrawn for the settlement of the loan for the USJ 11 house);

(xxi) Shares in Unit Trusts including in AmAsia Pacific Equity Income Fund;

(xxii) 6 Starburst Avenue, Truganina, Victoria, Australia (Lot 230, The Gateway Estate, Truganina, 3029);

(xxiii) Bank accounts overseas including OCBC Wing Hang, Hong Kong, Commonwealth Bank, Australia, HSBC Australia.

As mentioned earlier the RH was unwilling to provide full particulars of these assets, thereby compelling the PW to file an application for discovery and preservation of assets. Pursuant to that application, it was revealed that the RH had withdrawn a sum exceeding RM524,000 from the parties’ joint fixed deposit accounts held with HSBC.

Notwithstanding the grant of the discovery and preservation orders on 24 November 2023, the RH remained obdurate and failed to comply with the Court’s directions, thereby forcing the PW to seek leave to commence committal proceedings. It was only after the RH was found guilty of contempt and afforded an opportunity to purge his contempt that he relented and returned the monies withdrawn from the joint accounts.

The RH further refused to provide documents which he had been ordered to disclose, including details of foreign bank accounts, credit card statements, and CDS share account statements. As a result, the PW has been materially hampered by the RH’s persistent lack of cooperation.

From the documents available to the PW, it appears that the majority of the companies through which the RH held his business interests and assets were either wholly owned by him or controlled by him as the majority shareholder. In effect, the RH exercised control over these companies.

The documentary trail further reveals that the RH transferred his shares in companies in which he was either the sole or majority shareholder to friends or associates without any consideration. Thereafter, the assets of those companies were disposed of and the companies were wound up. The RH has provided no explanation for these transactions, nor has he rendered any account of the assets involved.

More significantly, the RH has refused and/or failed to produce documents relating to the transfer of his shares in these companies, offering only a bare assertion that the companies were dissolved following the transfers. This has significantly impeded the PW’s ability to ascertain the true value and disposition of the matrimonial assets.

The PW further complained that these actions were taken notwithstanding the fact that the companies concerned were profitable and had previously paid the RH substantial and regular dividends. By way of example, Macrolink Express (Sabah) Sdn Bhd, which has since been dissolved, recorded assets of RM425,914 and retained profits of RM319,384 as at 31 March 2020, and was able to declare dividends amounting to RM290,000 to the RH shortly before its dissolution.

In addition, the RH refused to continue servicing the hire-purchase loan repayments for the Proton X70 which the PW had been using, resulting in the repossession of the vehicle and leaving the PW without any means of transport.

It was further discovered that the RH had disposed of unit trusts and equity funds held with OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad, yet he has failed to produce any documentary evidence disclosing the proceeds received from such disposals. Notwithstanding the Court’s order for the preservation of assets, the said account was subsequently closed.

The foregoing are but some of the difficulties faced by the PW in relation to the identification and valuation of the matrimonial assets. There remain numerous missing documents, and the PW is unable to ascertain with certainty the full extent of the matrimonial assets or their current value. This is particularly so in relation to the companies, as the RH has taken steps to wind up several of them without providing any account of what has become of the assets therein, including properties and cash held in the companies’ bank accounts.

In the circumstances, the only assets which the PW is presently able to identify with some degree of certainty are those set out earlier. While the PW is unable to provide an accurate estimate of the total value of the matrimonial assets, she has nonetheless furnished this Court with a tabulated summary of the known assets purely for ease of reference. MATRIMONIAL ASSETS PROPERTIES 27 Jalan USJ 11/2C, 47620 Subang Jaya, Malaysia RM2,180,000 A-27-2 Titiwangsa Apartment (Purchased in 2013 for RM908,450) RM1,450,000 F-11-11-13, Blok F Pangsapuri Angsana, Pesiaran Subang Mewah (rental income RM800) RM230,000 Lot 757, D3 Blk D, Jln Subang 3, Subang Light Industrial Park, 47500 Subang Jaya (rental income RM4000pm from 1.7.2021) RM1,000,000 GRN HM15288 Lot 3991 Mukim Rantau Daerah Seremban (no documents as to sale proceeds) RM99,173 Lot 5 HSK Industrial Centre, Jalan Bundusan, Penampang CL Title 215349689 (purchase price RM800,000) (no documents on sale) RM1,060,000 Lot 17 Jalan Industri 1/7, Tmn Perindustrian USJ 1 RM3,000,000 USJ Heights (purchased for RM980,000 – sale proceeds) RM980,000 6 Starburst Avenue, Truganina VIC 3029, Australia (value as at 21.12.2018) AUD$600,000 RM2,002,990 ($695,000) COMPANY SHARES Macrolink Auto Center Sdn Bhd RM115,425 Macrolink Express (M) Sdn Bhd Not Known Macrolink E-Commerce (M) Sdn Bhd Not Known Macrolink Express (Miri) Sdn Bhd Not Known Macrolink Express (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd Not Known Macrolink Express (Sabah) Sdn Bhd Not Known Triwulan Sdn Bhd Not Known Macrolink EasyGo (M) Sdn Bhd Not Known Cardan Network (M) Sdn Bhd Not Known Casamawar Sdn Bhd Not Known Penske Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd Not Known Digital Parcel Store (M) Sdn Bhd Not Known RES Agency Not Known Cardan network Not Known Value of company shares (Australia) Not Known Value of company shares (Belize) (USD50,000) RM208,000 MOTOR VEHICLES & CLUB MEMBERSHIPS Motor vehicle - Mercedes Benz E230 (sold) RM33,000 Motor vehicle –Proton X70 Reg No. VCQ 2055 (for P’s use - repossessed) RM50,000 Mazda AUD33,620 (sale proceeds) Toyota Hiace AUD42,000 (sale proceeds) Perodua Ativa Berjaya Vacation Club BANK ACCOUNTS, UNIT TRUSTS & EPF OCBC 7082357444 & 7085252921 (as at 30.09.2021 – RM265,192.82) RM265,192.82 R1’s EPF (as at 7.2.22 – RM1,281,041) RM1,281,041 Petitioner’s EPF (P) (RM327,000 withdrawn and paid towards USJ11 house) Nil Deposits & Investments in HSBC Premier Joint Account (as at 14.1.22 - RM1,224,665.18) RM1,224,665.18 OCBC Unit Trusts (as at 31.1.22 – RM171,356.81) RM171,356.81 Fixed Deposits uplifted without consent from HSBC Joint Account RM528,157.84 Bank accounts overseas – OCBC Wing Hang 23.12.2020 HKD538,068.56 Bank accounts overseas – HSBC Australia Not known Bank account overseas – Commonwealth Bank Australia Not known AmAsia Pacific Equity Income Fund 114288 units (10.7.2015 – RM117,050.23) RM117,050.23

The PW asserts that, although certain financial statements are available for some of these companies, she does not consider them to be reliable or accurate. This is because many of the companies were under the complete control of the RH, and he has failed to account for the assets of the companies which he subsequently wound up.

The PW further believes that the RH is deliberately concealing his assets. In this regard, the RH has refused to produce his CDS share account statements and has failed to disclose his foreign assets, including KMX Ltd and companies based in Australia. The PW is also aware that the RH has invested in new business ventures, yet he has refused to disclose any details of these investments.

Additionally, after transferring his shares in various companies to third parties without any consideration and thereafter winding up those companies, the RH subsequently caused all his shares in Triwulan and Macrolink E-Commerce to be re-transferred back to himself, again without consideration and without any explanation whatsoever.

The PW asserts that the RH has access to substantial funds controlled by him through a number of companies, and she has urged this Court not to accept the RH’s claim that he is no longer working. There is evidence indicating that the RH continues to play an active role in the management of his business affairs, including making key business decisions relating to hiring and termination of staff, overseeing accounts and financial matters, developing new business, and dealing directly with customers. The PW further points to the RH’s deliberate alteration of his online profiles and the use of multiple email addresses as steps taken to conceal his continued involvement in these business activities.

The PW also contends that the RH continues to receive income from sources in Australia and Hong Kong which he has failed to disclose. In support of this contention, she relies on evidence showing that the RH received payments from KMX Ltd in the sums of RM22,003.50 in March 2023 and RM21,663.08 in April 2023.

The documentary evidence further demonstrates that the RH received numerous inward transfers into his Australian Commonwealth Bank account, including AUD7,281.90 in January 2022, AUD550.50 in February 2022, AUD224.00 in March 2022, AUD1,224.95 in April 2022, AUD473.50 in May 2022, and AUD1,560.00 in June 2022.

The RH also received monies from Macrolink Express (M) Sdn Bhd in November and December 2020, as well as in January 2021, as evidenced by the Daily Statement of Accounts of Macrolink Express (M) Sdn Bhd. The PW contends that these transactions demonstrate the existence of substantial income which the RH has failed to account for, and that he continues to conceal his true income from this Court.

The division of matrimonial assets upon the dissolution of a marriage is governed by section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, which provides as follows : “Section 76 - Power of court to order division of matrimonial assets

The court shall have power, when granting a decree of divorce or judicial separation, to order the division between the parties of any assets acquired by them during the marriage or the sale of any such assets and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale.

In exercising the power conferred by subs. (1) the court shall have regard to:

the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring of the assets or payment of expenses for the benefit of the family; (aa) the extent of the contributions made by the other party who did not acquire the assets to the welfare of the family by looking after the home or caring for the family;

any debts owing by either party which were contracted for their joint benefit;

the needs of the minor children, if any, of the marriage;

the duration of the marriage, and subject to those considerations, the court shall incline towards equality of division.

For the purposes of this section, references to assets acquired during a marriage include assets owned before the marriage by one party which have been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by their joint efforts. (emphasis added)

In Annathurai a/l Venkidasalam v Veni a/p Welluven [2022] MLJU 2501, the Court of Appeal set out the following guiding principles : “[26] Prior to the amendments to the 1976 Act in 2017, the court is empowered to deal with the division of assets only jointly acquired during the marriage. With the amendments, this has been reversed and the court is now empowered to deal with the division of assets acquired during the marriage irrespective of whose efforts it was to acquire them. The court, amongst others, shall have regard to the contributions of the party, who did not acquire the asset(s), to the welfare of the family. The court will look at overall contributions such as caring for the family and looking after the home. The duration of the marriage is also to be considered. The provision of section 76(2) of the 1976 Act is self-explanatory where the court shall incline towards equality of division of assets regardless of whose effort it was to acquire them. This provision remains the same. The key word is therefore "equality of division..."

It is therefore an established principle that the Court will incline towards equality in the division of matrimonial assets where both parties have made joint contributions, whether directly or indirectly, towards their acquisition and to the welfare of the family.

The RH has accumulated numerous assets over the course of the marriage. In determining the division of these matrimonial assets, I have taken due account of the PW’s substantial non-monetary contributions to the welfare of the family and to the acquisition of those assets.

In the early years of the relationship, the PW was gainfully employed and made direct financial contributions towards household expenses, including rent, food, groceries, and transportation. In addition to these financial contributions, she undertook the primary responsibility for household duties such as grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing, and other domestic tasks.

Following the birth of the children, the parties mutually agreed that the PW would cease full-time employment in order to care for the children on a full-time basis. The matrimonial home at No. 27, Jalan USJ, Subang Jaya, was acquired after the marriage, and the PW utilised funds from her Employees Provident Fund (EPF) account to partly finance both the purchase price and renovation costs.

The Court takes cognizance that throughout the marriage, the PW continued to support the RH’s business ventures. She supplemented the family income by working from home through baking and selling cakes and providing tuition. After the birth of the second child, she set aside these income-generating activities and devoted herself entirely to the care of the children and the management of the household. Notwithstanding this, she continued to assist the RH with administrative and paperwork matters relating to his businesses. This was accepted by the RH who admitted albeit grudgingly that the PW contributed not only to the care of the children and upkeep of the house but also helped with the business.

When they relocated to Melbourne in 2015 they shared and opened a business there and she was instrumental in setting up the business and at the same time took care of the children and the Triganina home. The RH set up a business in Melbourne called BD Workpac (the initials B and D in BD stand for their names Becky and Danial) which was a company that distributed magazines and did some minor forwarding/transportation. The PW asserted that she helped with the paperwork, invoicing, payment collection, collection of unsold magazines at the stores. They also incorporated another company called Macrolink Solutions Pty Ltd and she and RH were joint shareholders and directors. Later they decided to set up a restaurant and a company was incorporated called Aroma Spices Kitchen Pty Ltd for that purpose. Following the cancellation of their visas, the family returned to Malaysia and continued to reside together at the matrimonial home located at 27, Jalan USJ PJ. Subsequently, the RH made a confession regarding his involvement with another woman which of course led to the unravelling of the marriage.

Taken cumulatively, the PW’s direct financial contributions, indirect contributions, and long-term sacrifices in prioritising the family and the RH’s business pursuits constitute significant and substantial contributions within the meaning of section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

I entirely agree with the PW that her contribution towards the marriage must be taken into consideration. She gave up her job and made the commitment to caring for the children and maintaining the matrimonial home for more than 20 years in order that the RH could pursue his career and achieve success in his business. Her role in assisting the RH was integral and must be acknowledged. She made meaningful contributions not only to their marital life but also to all the businesses he had undertaken from early in their marriage up to the time they relocated to Australia.

The RH’s conduct in disposing of the assets cannot be justified as these assets, under the law would very likely form part of the matrimonial pool subject to equitable division under section 76 LRA. Such conduct showed a disregard for legal process and suggested a deliberate attempt to deprive the PW of her lawful entitlement.

The Subang Jaya Home and Truganina Putting that aside and focusing only on the plight of PW and the Children’s future welfare at this material time, this Court is of the view that it is only fair that the PW be given full rights to a home free from encumbrances for herself. Having kept in mind the advice of 50-50 division in Annathurai Venkidasalam’s case, this Court is of the view that it is still up to the Court’s reasonable discretion to order the appropriate percentage of division and if the circumstances warrant it even a full share of the property.

In considering the division of the immovable properties, I have taken into careful account that the PW and the children had been dependent on the RH throughout their lives and that they must be provided with shelter and a roof over their heads. I have also considered the duration of the marriage, the PW’s contributions to the household and family life, and her present age. The PW has nowhere else to go and is unable to afford any meaningful accommodation should no allocation be made in her favour. She is currently residing at the Subang Jaya home and does not have the financial means to acquire or rent another property.

It is undisputed that the PW made a substantial financial contribution towards the purchase of the matrimonial home by utilising RM270,000 from her EPF savings. Further, she incurred significant financial exposure through the parties’ jointly owned company, Casamawar Sdn Bhd, which obtained two loans amounting to RM1.52 million for the purchase of the matrimonial home, for which the PW stood as a personal guarantor. In addition, the PW contributed to the maintenance and upkeep of the matrimonial home, a fact which was admitted by the RH.

Taking into account all the above factors, I am of the view that the matrimonial home at Subang Jaya, ought to be awarded wholly to the PW so as to secure her future and to ensure that she is not left without shelter or financial security in her old age.

With respect to the Truganina property in Australia, it is undisputed from the documentary evidence produced and the RH’s own admissions that the PW is a joint borrower under the housing loan utilised to purchase the said property. The PW therefore bears equal legal and financial responsibility for the loan and remains directly exposed to the consequences of any default, including enforcement action and the risk of foreclosure.

In considering the appropriate disposition of the Truganina property as contemplated under section 76 LRA, the Court has had regard to the same factors that informed its approach in relation to the matrimonial home, including the length of the marriage, the PW’s substantial financial and non-financial contributions, her present age, her lack of alternative accommodation, and her limited ability to secure suitable housing in the absence of provision being made in her favour. The Court has also taken into account the fact that the parties’ children are pursuing their studies in Australia and require stable accommodation during that period.

Having weighed these considerations, and bearing in mind the need to secure the PW’s future housing needs and to prevent her from being left without shelter or financial security in her later years, the Court is of the view that it would be just and equitable for the Truganina property in Australia to be transferred wholly to the PW, free of all encumbrances. Such an order is necessary to protect the PW from continued financial exposure arising from the RH’s conduct and to preserve housing security for both the PW and the children.

The Other Assets This Court notes that the PW had successfully obtained orders from both the High Court and the Court of Appeal compelling the RH to disclose all matrimonial assets and for the preservation of those assets pending determination. Notwithstanding the clarity of these orders, the RH has deliberately and persistently failed to comply. He neither made full and frank disclosure of matrimonial assets accrued during the subsistence of the marriage nor properly accounted for assets that were dissipated.

The RH withdrew monies from the HSBC joint accounts and only returned the same during the course of the trial and under the threat of committal proceedings. During cross-examination on 14.11.2024, the RH openly admitted to his failure to disclose matrimonial assets, including credit card statements and Commonwealth Bank statements. He further admitted that he had surrendered an insurance policy to fund his own legal fees and personal expenses without disclosure to the Court. The RH also admitted to dissipating RM528,157.84 from the HSBC joint accounts and that he failed to return the monies within the seven-day time frame ordered by this Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Such conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for court orders and a deliberate attempt to conceal and dissipate matrimonial assets. The RH’s explanations were evasive, inconsistent, and wholly unsatisfactory. Further, the RH failed to disclose that he remained gainfully employed and continued to exercise effective control over his business interests. Prior to the purported transfers of shares without consideration, the RH held either 100% or majority shareholdings in the relevant companies. Although the RH testified that he had retired from these businesses in or about January 2021, documentary evidence clearly demonstrated that he continued to make management decisions and issue business instructions well after his alleged retirement.

When confronted with this evidence, the RH initially claimed that he was merely assisting with a handover. However, when questioned further regarding his post-retirement involvement, he was unable to provide any plausible explanation and merely issued bare denials. At the same time, the RH entered into an agreement to sell all the shares in Macrolink Express for a sum of at least RM36 million. The decision to dispose of profitable companies, coupled with the absence of any meaningful disclosure or accounting, is deeply troubling.

The documentary evidence reveals troubling information that the RH also transferred shares in companies in which he was the sole or majority shareholder to third parties without consideration and subsequently caused those shares to be transferred back to him, again without producing any documentary justification. He moved funds freely among the group of companies and increased the liabilities of jointly owned companies without the PW’s knowledge or consent. This pattern of conduct reinforces the conclusion that the RH exercised unilateral control over matrimonial assets and acted in a manner calculated to place those assets beyond the reach of the PW and this Court.

Taking into account the RH’s wilful non-disclosure, dissipation of assets, breach of court orders, and the adverse inferences drawn therefrom, together with the PW’s substantial direct and indirect contributions, including financial contributions, care of the family, raising the children, managing the household, maintaining the matrimonial homes, assisting in the businesses, and incurring liabilities for the joint benefit of the parties, I am satisfied that justice and equity require a calibrated division of the remaining matrimonial assets.

Accordingly, it is my decision that all assets held in the joint names of the parties shall be divided equally, with the PW receiving 50% of the value of those assets.

As for all other assets not specifically mentioned above, they are to be fully disclosed, valued and/or sold. The PW shall be entitled to 20% of the value of those assets, and where such assets are sold, the proceeds shall be distributed accordingly, with the PW receiving 20%. The value of these assets shall be determined by a certified valuer, and the costs of the valuation shall be borne by the parties in the proportion of 20% by the PW and 80% by the

Conclusion In conclusion having considered the petition, having undertaken a thorough examination of the evidence adduced and the submissions put forth by both parties, the divorce was granted, with the decree nisi made absolute immediately. The RH was ordered to pay a lump sum payment of RM1,260,000.00 for spousal maintenance, the educational expenses and a total of RM7000.00 for child maintenance for the 2 children. The matrimonial assets, which included the immovable properties, monies and shares were to be divided accordingly as stated above.

Costs of RM35,000 was awarded to the PW. Dated 5 January 2026. (JULIE LACK) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Darul Ehsan (SELANGOR) Counsel for the Petitioner : Yvonne Raj with Amanda Ooi (Messrs Jerald Gomez) Counsel for the Respondent : Jennifer Thomas with Gurmit Singh (Messrs Ajeet Sidhu) Counsel for the 2nd Respondent : Chen Siew Thong with Ng Wai Kiat (Messrs WK Ng & Co.)