Valyee A/P Alorsamy v Vijendran A/L Mohanan (BA-33-296-05/2022)

The marriage be dissolved; 29 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA

(ii) Guardianship, custody care and control of the Child of the 1 marriage be given to the PW;

(iii) Access to the Child be given to the RH at a pre-determined 3 public place on Sundays from 2 pm to 7 pm;

(iv) RM7000 monthly as maintenance for household expenses 5 and the Child’s educational needs until she completes her first 6 degree;

RM3,600 as spousal maintenance;

(vi) To pay all medical, dental and other incidental medical 9 expenses;

(vii) To hold the RH’s half (1/2) share of the matrimonial home No. 11 93, Jalan Kerongsang 7, Bandar Puteri, 41200 Klang, 12 Selangor in trust for the Child and transfer upon the 13 completion of her first tertiary education. A Declaration of Trust 14 is to be executed by the RH;

(viii) To continue to pay for the housing loan for the Matrimonial 16 home until the property is fully redeemed and transferred to 17 the Child;

(ix) Give exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Matrimonial 19 home to the PW and Child without any form of interference;

An amount equivalent to 1/3 of the RH’s EPF to the PW;

(xi) Legal costs of the proceedings to be paid to the PW. 22 23 [2] While the parties did not dispute that the marriage should be 24 dissolved and the provisions for the matrimonial property all the other 25 reliefs were contested. 26 27 [3] Following the trial and after considering all the evidence, relevant 28 cause papers and the respective written submissions of parties, this Court 29 granted the divorce and the decree nisi was made absolute immediately. 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA [4] Custody of the Child was granted jointly to the PW and RH with care 1 and control given solely to the PW. Reasonable access was given to the 2 RH taking into consideration the wishes of the Child. 3 4 [5] The RH was ordered to pay child maintenance of RM5000 per 5 month until the Child completes her tertiary education. 6 7 [6] No maintenance was ordered for the wife but she was given 1/3 of 8 the RH’s EPF which is to be calculated from date of marriage to the date 9 of decree nisi in accordance with Section 53A EPF Act, 1991. 10 11 [7] The RH was further ordered to pay the monthly hire purchase 12 payments of the car WC9102B including its road tax and insurance until 13 full payment. 14 15 [8] The RH is aggrieved with the decision of the Court in relation to the 16 following 3 issues:

the quantum of maintenance for the Child and household;

(ii) hire purchase payments of the car WC 9102B, yearly road tax 19 and insurance;

(iii) Costs of RM20,000 to the PW. 21 22 [9] Therefore, I will only confine my grounds of judgment to the issues 23 mentioned above. 24 25 Background Facts 26 [10] The PW and RH were legally married on 31.3.2006 and lived 27 together at their matrimonial home in Bandar Puteri, Klang Selangor. 28 29 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA [11] Their only child, a daughter was born on 3.3.2010 and she is now 1 14 years old. 2 3 [12] The nature of the RH’s job involves frequent travelling abroad over 4 long periods of time leaving the PW to singlehandedly juggle the 5 responsibility of raising and caring for their child and her own career. 6 7 [13] Over time the marriage gradually deteriorated amid allegations of 8 conflict and abuse. The RH left and moved out of the matrimonial home 9 in 2018 when the child was 8 years old. 10 11 [14] The PW filed this Divorce Petition in May 2022. The RH responded 12 with his Reply in July 2022. 13 14 Decision of the Court 15 Child Maintenance 16 [15] The powers for this Court to grant an order for child maintenance is 17 provided for under Sections 92 and 93 of the Law Reform (Marriage & 18 Divorce) Act 1976. It is trite law that the RH has a duty to maintain and 19 contribute to the maintenance of the Child. 20 21 [16] Section 92 provides as follows: 22 23

“Duty to maintain children 24 Except where an agreement or order of court otherwise provides, it 25 shall be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the 26 maintenance of his or her children, whether they are in his or her 27 custody or the custody of any other person, either by providing them 28 with such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be 29 reasonable having regard to his or her means and station in life or by 30 paying the cost thereof.”. 31 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA [17] Section 93 of the LRA expressly lays the primary responsibility of 1 maintaining the Child on the father to provide reasonable maintenance for 2 his children, always taking into account his means and station in life. 3 4 [18] Section 93 reads as follows: 5 6

“Power for court to order maintenance for children 7

The court may at any time order a man to pay maintenance for 8 the benefit of his child— 9

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 12

when making or subsequent to the making of an order placing the 13 child in the custody of any other person.

The court shall have the corresponding power to order a woman to 15 pay or contribute towards the maintenance of her child where it is 16 satisfied that having regard to her means it is reasonable so to order.

…”. 18 19 [19] Section 95 fixes the duration for maintenance as follows: 20 21

“Duration of orders for custody and maintenance 22 Except where an order for custody or maintenance of a child is 23 expressed to be for any shorter period or where any such order has been 24 rescinded, it shall expire on the attainment by the child of the age of 25 eighteen years or where the child is under physical or mental disability, 26 on the ceasing of such disability, whichever is the later.”. 27 28 [20] The law imposes a primary duty on the father to maintain the child 29 of the marriage while the mother is assigned the secondary obligation to 30 contribute towards the maintenance of the child. Such duty was affirmed 31 in GGC v CCC & Anor [2016] MLJU 377 wherein Lee Swee Seng J (as 32 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA he then was) held that it is the duty of the father to provide for the children 1 and to maintain the standard of living of the Child. 2 3 [21] The phrase maintenance was explained in the case of Sivajothi a/p 4 K. Suppiah v Kunathasan a/l Chelliah [2000] 3 CLJ 175 as follows: 5 6 “Maintenance signify any form of material provision that will enable an 7 adult to live a normal life and a child to be brought up properly. Thus 8 maintenance cannot mean only mere subsistence, i.e. the food she puts 9 in her mouth but also means the clothes on her back, the house in which 10 she lives and the money which she has to have in her pocket, all of which 11 vary according to the means of the man who leaves a wife behind. 12 Moreover, it is settled law that it is the duty of the father to maintain the 13 standard of living the children enjoys…” 14 15 [22] The PW by her Divorce Petition is requesting for RM7000 as 16 maintenance for household expenses as well as for the Child’s education 17 needs until she completes her first tertiary education. 18 19 [23] In her evidence in court the PW explained the details of the 20 expenses incurred in managing the household expenses and the Child. 21 22 [24] The PW explained that prior to their separation, she was the one 23 who was given the responsibility to manage their monthly household 24 expenses, Child’s expenses, education, medical and other bills. The PW 25 affirmed that prior to their separation, the RH had given his ATM card to 26 her to use the monies in the account to pay for all the household and other 27 expenses incurred for the family. She told the court she was given the 28 responsibility of managing all their expenses and he left it to her to handle 29 the family’s account. The RH did not impose any limit in spending for the 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA household requirements. He did not interfere nor question her 1 management of the family and household expenses. 2 3 [25] The breakdown of the household monthly expenses are itemized in 4 the table below as follows :- 5 6 No. Payment

Monthly house instalment 1,700.00 2. Monthly car instalment 1,590.00 3. Electricity bill 250 - 350 4. Unifi bill 149.00 5. Indah Water Consortium 65.00 6. Water bill 40.00 7.

Petitioner’s telephone bill (prepaid) 00 8.

Child’s telephone bill (prepaid) 00 9. Petrol 500.00 10. Dry kitchen items 1000.00 11. Wet kitchen items 1000.00 12. Security Guard Services 70.00 13. Tamil tuition fee 70.00 14. Dog food 200.00 15. Toiletries and laundry items 300.00 16. Medicines/supplements for Child 200.00 17. Reference books and story books 300.00 to 400.00 every 6 months 18. Quit rent and assessment 219.00 (per year)

7803.00 7 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA [26] From the monthly RM7000 that was put into the account the PW 1 paid for all the bills and other costs incurred. She had exhibited the bills 2 for the payment of quit rent and assessment, Indah Water Konsortium 3 bills, water and electric bills for the house which she paid from the monthly 4 sum provided by the RH. Receipts for the payment of exam fees, 5 competition and tuition fees, school uniform and school fess for the Child 6 have been exhibited in the CBOD. She has also produced receipts for the 7 house security monthly fees, repair of car, purchase of washing machine, 8 servicing of air conditioner and other expenses incurred on a month to 9 month basis and other exigencies. 10 11 [27] However the RH took back the ATM card from the PW and from the 12 year 2021 the RH had only been providing her with the sum of RM3,600 13 per month. The PW argued that this sum is insufficient to cover all the 14 monthly expenses as reflected in her summary on monthly expenses in 15 the table above. She claimed she could no longer maintain the standard 16 of living she and the Child used to have when she was receiving allowance 17 from the RH. She has been forced to pawn her jewellery, borrow from 18 family and friends and look for part time jobs in order to supplement the 19 income. Despite having a job and income, the PW is still unable to 20 maintain the standard of living as before because aside from the existing 21 monthly financial commitments, the PW has other exigency payments to 22 bear such as paying for the utilities and the Child’s daily expenses. There 23 is now no left over balance to cover her personal expenses and to keep a 24 portion as personal savings for a rainy day. 25 26 [28] At the time when the trial was ongoing, the PW was working as a 27 part time preschool teacher at Eduwis since September 2023. She earns 28 RM700 per month. She also offers private tuition to supplement her 29 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA income as her salary as a preschool teacher is insufficient to cover all the 1 expenses incurred. 2 3 [29] The RH in opposing the amount claimed by the PW asserted that 4 the sum of RM7000 sought as maintenance for the Child is excessive and 5 unreasonable and that the monthly salary he receives each month is 6 insufficient to pay for that amount. The RH submitted that his nett income 7 is RM7,125.00 but his monthly expenses totalled RM5,856.00. Due to the 8 financial constraint he could not afford to pay RM7000 for the child and 9 household expenses. However, as a responsible father he states that he 10 has been paying RM3,600 which comprised of RM1,600 for child 11 maintenance and RM2000 as wife maintenance. He has assured the 12 Court his readiness and willingness to continue to pay this amount as 13 maintenance for the PW and Child. He states that he cannot afford more 14 than that due to his monthly commitments. 15 16 [30] The RH in his answer at the trial admitted that his job scope included 17 frequent travelling for work and he received an allowance that covered for 18 his food and other expenses during those trips. However the allowance 19 received varied according to the number and duration of trips made. 20 21 [31] The issue to be decided now is a reasonable amount of 22 maintenance to be awarded for the Child and the household needs. It is 23 trite that in deciding what amount of maintenance the RH should pay, this 24 Court must take into consideration as a starting point what are the means 25 and needs of the parties. In the Court of Appeal decision of Sreedevi 26 Naidu T Sree Ramalu Naidu v Eelasegeran T Nadarajah & Anor [2016] 27 CLJ 538 it was decided as follows : 28 29 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA “As a starting point, it is useful to reiterate that the term maintenance in 1 ss 77 and 92 of the LRA 1976 should be construed widely as it signifies 2 any form of material provision that will enable the wife and children, if 3 any, to be placed in a position to enjoy the same standard of living as 4 they did during the subsistence of the marriage…” 5 6 [32] To reach a well-informed decision this Court has meticulously 7 examined the evidence adduced by both parties to assess the 8 appropriateness of the monthly maintenance prayed for. As noted earlier 9 the PW had given detailed and precise particulars of the household and 10 the Child’s monthly expenses. 11 12 [33] The RH has not disputed that prior to their separation it was the PW 13 who kept the RH’s Public Bank ATM card. This ATM card is where his 14 salary is banked in. The PW could spend within the limits of the ATM card 15 and she used the money from the ATM to pay for all the expenses incurred 16 for the household and the child. 17 18 [34] Upon a consideration of the evidence adduced both oral and 19 documentary, on a balance of probabilities, I find that the sum of RM7000 20 claimed by the PW is rather on the high side and does not commensurate 21 with the needs of a young teenage Child. 22 23 [35] From a close examination of the expenses incurred I observed that 24 some of the expenses listed by the PW were excessive and on the high 25 side for a family of just 2 persons. For example, the claim for dry and wet 26 kitchen things amounted to RM2000 and there was nothing in the form of 27 receipts to support that sum. Neither did she provide a breakdown of these 28 items and the rationale behind claiming this exponential sum. 29 Furthermore, she had during cross-examination admitted that the 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA expenses for groceries did not total up to the sum as claimed. In light of 1 this insufficiently I think it is only appropriate to reduce that sum to a more 2 reasonable figure. 3 4 [36] I also noted that the bill for medicines and supplements for the Child 5 were not particularized. I do not think the Child will fall sick every month 6 in order for her to be administered medication on a monthly basis. These 7 amounts will have to be adjusted. 8 9 [37] In addition, I find that the utility bills can be cut down to a moderate 10 sum. As I have noted the household consists of two persons but the utility 11 bills are on the high side. The PW should practise conserving water and 12 energy consumption. This left me no choice but to adjust and reduce this 13 sums to a more reasonable sum. 14 15 [38] Given this context the Court could not agree with the PW’s request 16 for RM7000 per month. 17 18 [39] As it stands now the RH has been paying the sum of RM3600 ever 19 since he moved out from the matrimonial home. I find this amount to be 20 insufficient to maintain the Child’s standard of living as well as to cover 21 the expenses of the household. 22 23 [40] After making the necessary adjustments to the claim made and after 24 taking into consideration the facts of this case and applying it to the 25 principles mentioned earlier, I am of the view that an amount of RM5000 26 a month is a reasonable sum to enable the PW and the Child to live a 27 comfortable life that is akin to the standard of living they used to have prior 28 to the breakdown of the marriage. 29 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA [41] I find that RM5000 is a justified sum which addresses the 1 reasonable costs of raising a school going child. The Child is now in 2 secondary school. Very soon she will transition to obtaining a university 3 degree. I have taken note that the Child is now 14 years old. My constant 4 paramount consideration has always been the welfare and best interest 5 of the Child. She must have the financial support that she was 6 accustomed to enable her to lead a healthy life and to ensure that all her 7 reasonable needs are taken care of. Ultimately the Court must ensure that 8 the PW and the Child can move forward with their lives as smoothly as 9 possible. 10 11 [42] In my assessment of whether the PW and Child were deserving of 12 RM5000 as maintenance I had taken into consideration the income, 13 earning capacity of the spouses and their financial resources now and in 14 the future. I also took into consideration the standard of living enjoyed by 15 the family prior to the breakdown of the marriage. I maintain the view that 16 the amount of RM5000 is a sum that is justifiable in order for the Child and 17 the PW to maintain a reasonable standard of living to a more self-reliant 18 and stable household from hereon. This amount is sufficient to address 19 the genuine needs of the household and mother-daughter duo. 20 21 [43] The RH has argued that the PW being the mother of the Child has 22 a duty herself to contribute towards the maintenance of the Child referring 23 to Section 93(2) of LRA 1976. That would be true if the PW was gainfully 24 employed with an adequate salary to finance herself and her Child. 25 26 [44] It has been held in Celvambigai Thirucelvam v Pandian 27 Subramaniam [2015] 6 CLJ 225 that whilst both parents have the duty 28 under Section 92 of the LRA 1976 to maintain the children of the marriage, 29 Section 93 stipulates that it is the husband who has a primary duty to 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA maintain the children. The wife’s duty is only secondary; her role is 1 supportive and supplementary to that of the husband’s. 2 3 [45] This has become trite law followed in a number of other cases, In 4 Nithiyani Kulaveerasingam v Indran N Jeganathan [2010] CLJU 314 5 the Court held that : 6 7 “It is the primary duty of a father, and the secondary duty of a mother, to 8 maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children.” 9 10 [46] In Murali Nariandas v Saini Bai Bulchand [2012] CLJU 1372 11 Yaakob Sam J held that : 12 13 “[18] It was held in the case of Parkunan Achulingam v Kalaiyarasy 14 a/p Periasamy [2004] 7 CLJ 175 as follows:

The assessment of the maintenance payable in respect to the 16 children is provided for by s. 92 of the LRA. Section 93 of the LRA 17 also makes clear that the husband has the primary obligation to 18 maintain the children. The mother only has a secondary obligation 19 where the court is satisfied that having regard to her means it is 20 reasonable to do so…” 21 22 [47] Based on the evidence adduced I am satisfied and make the finding 23 that the PW does not have the means or the capacity to contribute 24 financially. It was established during trial that the PW faced challenges to 25 secure a job with an affordable salary. She was candid in revealing the 26 income she earns as a preschool teacher. In my view it is inadequate even 27 to support herself let alone a Child and a household. Furthermore, she 28 must juggle with her responsibility as a parent to ensure that all the needs 29 of the Child are taken off as well as to manage the household matters. 30 The PW is not sitting twiddling her fingers. 31 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA [48] The parties were married for about 18 years and separated since 1

In view of the long duration of the marriage, I find no valid reason 2 to deny the PW and the Child from receiving the said sum in order for 3 them to maintain the standard of living they enjoyed and were accustomed 4 to before the RH made the decision to leave the marriage. I have taken 5 note that the PW had to leave a well paying job previously because of the 6 need to focus on the Child. The PW may not be able to contribute 7 financially but her non-monetary contribution should never be discounted. 8 Having chosen to remain close to home to be with the Child, the PW is 9 putting the welfare of the family by looking after and caring for the Child 10 as her priority. To be fair, it has to be conceded that while contribution must 11 necessarily be measured in monetary terms, there is merit in the PW’s 12 argument that the Court cannot ignore contribution in other forms which 13 could in some cases be more significant and meaningful than monetary 14 means. The PW in the circumstances of this case has to juggle 15 housework, the needs of the Child and her own part time job. She has to 16 ensure that the Child receives a stable and nurturing environment. To the 17 Child the PW represents a loving mother endeavouring to maintain a 18 stable home and to cushion the Child from the emotional toll as a result of 19 the parents separation and divorce. On top of that she has the duty and 20 responsibility of supervising the Child’s education, homework, tuition and 21 any other extra-curricular activities. She will also have to be the parent 22 that enforces discipline. These responsibilities are thankless, tiring and 23 exhausting. The RH has to appreciate that he is spared of all these 24 responsibilities. All these factors cannot be measured in monetary terms. 25 26 [49] It is imperative to note that this amount of RM5000 monthly 27 encompasses expenses to be used for not only her maintenance but for 28 other expenses such as the Child’s education, healthcare and other 29 miscellaneous expenses. It must be noted that the PW in her wisdom has 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA seen it fit not to make a separate claim for the costs and expenses of 1 education incurred for the child now and in the future. The entire costs and 2 expenses of education and health is to be entirely shouldered by the PW. 3 The PW would have to make do with the maintenance sum of RM5000 4 that she will receive to incorporate all costs of education incurred until the 5 Child completes her first degree. The RH is not obligated to pay for her 6 education costs right up to her age of 18 years or until she finishes tertiary 7 education. Neither is he obligated to pay for the costs related to the Child’s 8 health. He is relieved of any duty to pay for all her expenses when she is 9 ready to enter university. The RH should therefore accept that he has been 10 spared of paying for all those sums and therefore he should not baulk at 11 being ordered to pay a monthly sum of RM5000 per month for the Child 12 and the household expenses. He should count himself fortunate for being 13 spared of bearing those costs in the future. 14 15 [50] The PW will have to make do with the sum of RM5000 to support 16 the Child’s future expenses when she enters into university for her further 17 studies. The PW will have to be prudent and keep any balance sums of 18 money not used for the Child and household for the future education 19 expenses of the Child. This Court will take judicial notice on the costs of 20 living in general especially for those living in the city. Parties cannot deny 21 that bringing up a child in these trying times with costs of education, food 22 and utilities and other expenses all on the rise is challenging. It is more so 23 especially now that the Child is in her teenage years. She would definitely 24 need new clothes, a laptop and other necessities. That reminds me of the 25 decision of Sivajothi K Suppiah where the learned Judge had the 26 occasion to address a similar issue with regard to the needs of growing 27 children as follows: 28 29 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA “[18] I would respectfully agree with the views expressed by the learned 1 Judge. In the same way, in the instant case, the children are at the stage 2 of growing up. I would say that they definitely need new clothes and 3 other necessities. I must add that besides this, it is the duty and 4 responsibility of the defendant, as the natural father, to provide the 5 children better education, medical care, tuition and extra-curricular 6 activities for their overall development, welfare and advancement…” 7 8 [51] In summary I am of the view that the amount quantified will 9 sufficiently cover all the Child’s daily living expenses ensuring that 10 financial support for her in the future will continue. Seen in this light and 11 bearing in mind all the considerations I listed earlier, it is my conclusion 12 that the RH’s financial obligation to pay RM5000 per month is very fair and 13 appropriate and it adequately addresses the Child’s needs and that of the 14 household. 15 16 [52] That brings me now to the next issue to be decided which is whether 17 the amount of RM5000 is within the means of the RH. 18 19 [53] On the facts of this case the PW has to adduce proof that the 20 Defendant has the means to pay the amount prayed for. As such, RH’s 21 income, bank accounts and any other assets that he has is highly relevant 22 to assist this Court in making a proper assessment of the means of the 23 RH. 24 25 [54] In my consideration, I have kept in mind the guidance given in the 26 case of Parkunan Archulingam where the learned Judge held: 27 28 “In determining the amount of maintenance to be paid, the assessment 29 is based primarily on the means and the needs of the parties. The needs 30 of the party seeking maintenance is the crucial factor for providing the 31 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA maintenance. In deciding the quantum of maintenance, the capacity of 1 the husband, his ability to pay and the realities of the husband or parties 2 financial position should be taken into account. One other factor, the 3 potential earning of the applicant should also be considered.” 4 5 [55] The RH has contended that his nett salary is RM7125.00 and 6 therefore he cannot afford to pay the amount claimed. As rightly observed 7 by counsel for the PW the RH was not entirely forthcoming regarding his 8 sources of income and its total as the Court would have wanted him to be. 9 Initially he claimed that his salary was as stated in his salary slip and 10 nothing else and refused to provide this Court with the particulars of his 11 income from his travels insisting that his allowance was only RM500. Only 12 after the PW filed the application to produce documents vide Encl 27 did 13 he produce all the necessary documents such as his credit and debit card 14 statements, bank statements, Income Tax statements and his full 15 remuneration package from his employer. Having had sight of all these 16 documents, it is concluded that his evidence that he receives a nett 17 income only RM2,969.00 is highly misleading and not true. A 18 distinguishing feature of this case is the fact that the RH has to travel 19 abroad very often to fulfil his job obligations and hence he is provided with 20 allowances for local and overseas travel and other benefits from his 21 employer. 22 23 [56] Upon close examination of all these documents it became apparent 24 that apart from a fixed salary the RH was receiving large sums of money 25 which was paid into his credit card account in Citibank and savings 26 account in Public Bank. The details have been laid down in the PW’s 27 written submissions at p 11 of Encl 102. In summary the RH has received 28 the following sums for travel advances and other additional advances: 29 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA 2019 : RM145,975.00 1 2020 : RM33,343.00 2 2021 : RM132,649.00 3 2022 : RM205,975.00 4 2023 : RM517,943.00 5 6 [57] It is trite law that any party who desires the Court to believe in any 7 facts claimed must adduce convincing evidence to prove those facts. Bare 8 averments do not make up for sufficient corroboration. There must be full 9 and frank disclosure of material facts with corroboration to enable the 10 Court to assess the actual financial position of the party liable to pay 11 maintenanceThe RH has not been frank in disclosing the income he 12 earned. He failed to make a full and frank disclosure of his earnings. The 13 importance of full and frank disclosure of income and earnings cannot be 14 underscored enough. If found to be true the Court may draw adverse 15 inferences pursuant to section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950. 16 17 [58] In cross-examination during trial the RH contended that he only 18 earned a basic salary of RM5686 and an allowance of RM2,700 and 19 RM500 for travelling allowance and after the relevant deductions, his 20 expenses and obligations are RM9,456.00 per month. This is highly 21 improbable and not credible considering the RH is spending more that he 22 earns. There are available supporting documentary evidence showing that 23 from 2016 to 2020 which is about the time he left the matrimonial home, 24 the RH was providing the sum of RM7000 to the PW monthly for the 25 household expenses and child maintenance. This proved that he was able 26 and had the means to provide the PW with RM7000 to be used towards 27 the household expenses. It would seem that the RH has not been 28 forthcoming regarding his sources of income and its total. It cannot be 29 right that he merely received RM500 as allowance and nothing else 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA whatsoever. A perusal of the following documents such as his credit and 1 debit card statements, bank statements, EA Form, Income Tax as well the 2 RH’s full remuneration package showing his salary, allowances for local 3 and overseas travel and all other benefits for the years 2019, 2020, 2021 4 and 2022 all consistently show that the RH had received large sums of 5 money from his employers. Surely it would be right to say the RH as the 6 primary provider, has to reassess his priorities and put the Child first in 7 providing her with the necessitates that are required for her to live a 8 comfortable life. 9 10 [59] However I received no explanation from the RH as to his reasons 11 for unilaterally reducing the amount he gave to the PW from RM7000 per 12 month to only RM3,600 after he left the matrimonial home. Hence his 13 admission that he had given the PW his credit card to spend on household 14 expenses during the marriage must be taken cognizance of. Also the fact 15 that he did not deny that he had reduced the amount to RM3600.00 after 16 he left the matrimonial home is especially significant. His answers in his 17 witness statement were also inconsistent to his answers given during 18 cross-examination. His answers were not readily reconciled with the 19 contemporaneous documents produced in court. The RH was not truthful 20 about his allowances received for carrying out his duties overseas. 21 22 [60] Hence after giving full consideration to the financial situation of the 23 parties, the age and requirement of the Child, I am satisfied that a 24 reasonable sum of maintenance the RH should pay is RM5000 per month 25 and it is ordered that this sum is payable until the Child completes her 26 tertiary education 27 28 29 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA Hire purchase payments of the car WC 9102B, yearly road tax and 1 insurance 2 [61] The PW additionally claimed for the expenses incurred for the hire 3 purchase payments for the car, its yearly road tax and insurance. The car 4 monthly instalments come up to RM1,590. It was the joint decision of the 5 PW and RH to purchase the Toyota Camry car. This vehicle was acquired 6 during the marriage and therefore it qualifies as matrimonial asset. The 7 RH made all the monetary contributions towards the purchase of this car 8 while the PW made non-monetary contributions such as looking after the 9 home and caring for the family. Therefore, it would be a just decision under 10 section 76 of LRA 1976 for this Court to ensure that the yearly road tax 11 and insurance of the car is paid for. Otherwise the Court will have to order 12 the RH to pay even more for child and household maintenance since it is 13 his duty to provide proper transportation to the Child’s convenience and 14 education. 15 16 [62] The RH is well aware that the car is a family car, used on a daily 17 basis and it is the only mode of transportation for the Child’s school, extra 18 curricular activities, other classes and daily needs. In my opinion having a 19 car has become almost a basic necessity. Without this car the PW and 20 Child will be put to hardship and inconvenience to depend on public 21 transportation. To be fair, the concern for the safety of the Child is also a 22 valid consideration. 23 24 [63] The RH had made the decision to buy the car for the PW and Child 25 to use while he was abroad working. I consider it only reasonable for the 26 RH to provide a means of transport for the Child in keeping with what the 27 Child is accustomed to. It is therefore only fair that he continues with the 28 hire purchase payments of the car and the expenses of renewal of road 29 tax and insurance. In any event the monthly amount claimed is minimal 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA and affordable whereas road tax and insurance is a yearly occurrence. 1 The RH will not be burdened by making these payments. The evidence 2 shows that there is only one more year of payments to be incurred and 3 this financial assistance from the RH will further relieve the financial 4 burden shouldered by the PW. It is disingenuous of the RH to avoid his 5 financial obligations with conveniently claiming the PW has the financial 6 means to pay for the car maintenance yearly insurance and road tax since 7 she had chosen not to pursue interim maintenance. There should not be 8 any adverse inference attached to PW’s choice and decision to use the 9 car as the family car. To her credit she has not demanded for a brand new 10 car but merely for his assistance financially to continue with the hire 11 purchase payments, yearly road tax and insurance of the car that they are 12 presently using. 13 14 Conclusion 15 [64] Premised on the above grounds, I have allowed the PW’s divorce 16 petition against the RH with costs of RM20,000 awarded to the PW. In 17 exercising my discretion to award costs to the PW, I was of the view that 18 costs of RM20,000 was fair and reasonable and not excessive taking into 19 account that the matter had to proceed to trial and took 2 days to complete 20 with another one day reserved for submissions and clarification. 21 22 Dated 11 April 2025. 23 24 25 26 (JULIE LACK) 27 Judge 28 High Court of Malaya 29 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA Counsel 1 For the Petitioner: 2 James Culaz 3 (MESSRS. CULAZ & ASSOCIATES) 4 5 For the Respondant: 6 Kiretheega A/P Mahalingam 7 (MESSRS. RASTAM SINGA & CO) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 S/N 5/jIudjwUkah3I8t8YhTRA