Usharani A/P Perumal v Kumaran A/L Appu (Kini Dikenali Sebagai Mohd Naim Bin Abdullah) (NA-33-13-02/2025)

In the divorce proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent, now known as Mohd Naim Bin Abdullah, the Petitioner is seeking for an order for the Respondent to pay monthly maintenance in the sum of RM1,500.00. There is also an issue with regards to the matrimonial property - the Petitioner prays for the Respondent's entire right, title, and interest be transferred to her. The Respondent on the other hand submits that the property should be sold and the net proceeds sub-divided, proposing a ratio of 30% for the Petitioner and 70% for himself.

The parties were married on 22.1.1986 and the marriage was registered at Jabatan Pendaftaran Negeri Sembilan. They have two children from the marriage, both of whom are now adults. The matrimonial home located at 50 Jalan Bukit Blossom 10, Taman Bunga Blossom, Seremban was acquired during the marriage.

The Petitioner claims she paid RM10,000.00 downpayment for the property. She also asserts that she maintained and renovated the home using her own resources, including her savings, jewelry and EPF withdrawals, while the Respondent provided no financial assistance for upkeep after leaving her, the family and the matrimonial home. According to the Petitioner, she had struggled using her own resources for nearly 27 years after the Respondent left in 1998.

The marriage effectively ended in 1998 when the Respondent left the matrimonial home and never resumed married life with the Petitioner. Subsequent to leaving, the Respondent converted to Islam (adopting the name Mohd Naim bin Abullah) and married another woman.

The Petitioner is now 63 years old, and she suffers from health issues including rheumatism, arthritis, and high blood pressure since 2017 which limit her earning capacity. From the cause papers, the Petitioner was unemployed and supported by her parents after the Respondent left - that would be from 1998-2001. She was thereafter employed at Seri Mawar Transport Services Sdn Bhd from 2001 to 2015. After this employment, she worked part-time at a center for special needs children from 2015 to 2017. She claims she is no longer receiving job offers due to her age but continues to perform occasional part-time work in tailoring and catering services.

The Respondent, on the other hand, is the owner and director of Naim Security and owns his own separate property. He was formerly employed in the police force. The housing loan installments were deducted from his salary during that time. Nonetheless, those deductions were stopped when he left the force. The timelines of these were not adduced. No documentary proof to show the Respondent had and has been servicing the loan were produced. On the balance of the outstanding loan, the Respondent asserts it is approximately RM40,000.00. But no bank statements or receipts or any other document was produced to corroborate this contended arrears amount. The Respondent alleges the property was at risk of auction due to non-payment. Other than the mere contention, there is no corroboration to the fact. The Petitioner has never received any notices of default or foreclosure addressed to the matrimonial home.

After the Respondent left in 1998, the Petitioner collected rent from the property and used the proceeds as a substitute for maintenance. During the oral submissions, this Court was informed that the property may be where she returns to stay now that her son is married and is starting a family.

Considering that facts and circumstances in this case, the marriage has irretrievably broken down many years ago back in-1998. With the Respondent converting to Islam and now having his own new family, there does not seem to be any way both parties can resuscitate the marriage. Moreover, there is no intention to do so expressed by either party.

This Court considered the case law relied by the Petitioner in HAL v HAS [2024] 11 MLJ 309 in which the High Court considered a divorce petition arising in the context of conversion to Islam. The Court held that once it was evident that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, further delay was unnecessary and the decree nisi was made absolute immediately.

Thus, this Court grants an order for a dissolution of the marriage. A decree nisi absolute is granted with immediate effect. There is no order as to the custody and care of the children as a result of their marriage as they are now adults.

These proceedings are governed by the Law Reform (marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA 1976). The dissolution of marriage when one party has converted to Islam is under section 51 LRA 1976. The law under section 77 LRA 1976 empowers this Court to order the Respondent to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife during or after matrimonial proceedings. The Petitioner is seeking an order for maintenance in the sum of RM1,500.00 per month.

As provided for under section 78 LRA 1976, this Court sets out to evaluate the financial positions, earning capacities and basic requirements of both parties. The objective is often to place the wife in a position to enjoy a standard of living reasonably consistent with that experienced during the marriage. Malaysian authorities establish that a wife's income or ability to work does not automatically disentitles her to maintenance, especially if she was forced to work due to the husband's neglect. It is the considered conclusion of this Court that the Petitioner is entitled to maintenance regardless of whether her part-time work is permanent. The Respondent's argument that the Petitioner is a working-class woman. The following also forms part of this Court's consideration:

She is 62 years of age;

(ii) Her medical conditions are not explicitly denied by the Respondent;

(iii) The degree of breakdown of the marriage clearly on a balance of probabilities is more on the Respondent's part, as can be seen from him leaving the matrimonial home and converting into Islam, married and started a family. All this show he had effectively abandoned his responsibility when it came to the marriage and family he had with the Petitioner. [13] The High Court case of Tan Wan Ching v Lim Peng Kun [2026] MLJU 628 cited by the Petitioner held that it is common for wives to participate in the workforce and this fact cannot be used as a justification for husbands to shirk their obligation to support their wives. Refer to Nguan Chwee Ling v Lim Lai Huat [1994] 3 CLJ 578, Ng Kah Leng v Lai Chuan Sheng [2017] MLJU 1906 and Wong Kim Foon v Teau Ah Kau [1998] 1 MLJ 359 which affirm that a wife's income does not automatically disentitle her to maintenance. [14] This Court regards the financial capabilities of the Respondent there is nothing before this Court to show that he cannot afford the said sum monthly. Therefore, this Court finds that RM1,500.00 per month for the Petitioner's maintenance is just and reasonable for her living expenses and medical needs until of course, she remarries. Matrimonial Property [15] The contention that the Petitioner paid RM10,000.00 for the downpayment has not been effectively rebutted. She had also contributed to the matrimonial home and the upkeep during the marriage and after the Respondent had abandoned her and the family. This Court noted the Respondent's argument that the Petitioner cannot claim that she was under financial hardship when she had afforded much maintenance costs for the matrimonial home. However, it is not just that but also her non-monetary contribution when she was left alone to bring up their two children. [16] Regard is also made to the fact that the Respondent did not interfere with matrimonial home for approximately 27 years, or asserted any interest, which reasonably had led her to believe that he had left the matrimonial home for her and the two children. The Respondent has no urgent need for the matrimonial home as he had set up another which he is currently living in with his new family. [17] There is also this contention that there exists an outstanding balance of the housing loan - the sum RM40,000.00 is not proven by any banking records or statements or documentation. The Petitioner affirmed that she is not aware of any sum owing or any auction pending. The Respondent has not paid anything towards the matrimonial for 27 years. [18] It is the considered view of this Court that the Petitioner ought to be given the opportunity to return to the matrimonial home. This Court grants for her to live there without any interference, Should that not be her option, then it is to be sold. This is because due to the maintenance of RM1,500.00 by the Respondent as ordered by this Court, it would not be necessary for the Petitioner to rely on the rental income as maintenance. Accordingly, with the matrimonial home sold, the proceeds of which (after all expenses deducted) to be divided 75% to the Petitioner and 25% to the Respondent. The parties thereafter can move on with their respective lives without any baggage of the marriage that did not work for them. Dated 25 May 2026 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SEREMBAN NEGERI SEMBILAN For the Petitioner:Mrs Bhama Baskaran R.J. Malar, Bhama & PartnersFor the Respondent:Mr. Shankar Ramachandran Ramachandran Shankar & Co