Wong Juan Yong v Wong Wei Ting (MA-33-77-10/2025)

This is an interlocutory application taken out by the Respondent Wife within ongoing divorce proceedings. By a Notice of Application in Chambers sealed on 4 February 2026 (Enclosure 13), the Respondent Wife seeks an order under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 compelling the Petitioner Husband to make discovery of specified categories of financial documents. The application is supported by an Affidavit in Support affirmed by the Respondent Wife on the same date (Enclosure 14).

The substantive proceeding is the Petitioner Husband's Petition for Divorce sealed on 24 September 2025 (Enclosure 1), to which the Respondent Wife has filed an Answer and Cross-Petition dated 3 December 2025 (Enclosure 10). The dissolution of marriage itself is not contested. The live controversies are confined to the ancillary reliefs, namely the quantum of child maintenance for the parties' minor son, the quantum of maintenance for the Respondent Wife, and the division of matrimonial assets, including the matrimonial home.

Both sides accept that the elements governing an order for discovery are those identified in the line of authority commencing with Yekambaran Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581 (High Court). The arguments turn not on the doctrinal framework but on its application. The Petitioner Husband contends that the documents already produced suffice to determine the ancillary reliefs and that the further documents sought are either irrelevant, not in his possession, or otherwise unnecessary. The Respondent Wife contends that the documents are demonstrably relevant, specifically identified, and necessary to a fair disposal of the financial issues.

The dispute, as the affidavits and submissions filed by the parties have crystallised it, reduces in substance to two questions: first, whether the discovery sought in respect of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Petitioner Husband's List of Documents (Enclosure 16) is necessary for the fair disposal of the ancillary reliefs and for saving costs within the meaning of Order 24 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012; and secondly, whether the application is, when properly characterised, a fishing expedition or an impermissible attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Schedule 2 of the List of Documents falls outside the live dispute. The Respondent Wife has, in paragraph 8 of her Reply Submissions dated 21 April 2026 (Enclosure 25), expressly accepted the Petitioner Husband's explanation on affidavit that the documents in Schedule 2, relating to certain accounts said to be maintained with AmBank (Malaysia) Berhad and OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad, are no longer within his possession, custody or power. No order is sought in respect of those documents and none falls to be made.

These Grounds of Judgment set out the reasons for my decision on Enclosure 13. The structure of these Grounds follows the conventional order: the material facts and procedural posture; the issues for determination; the statutory and legal framework governing discovery, in particular as it operates in matrimonial proceedings; the analysis and determination on each issue; and the orders consequent upon those determinations.

The parties were married on 12 October 2013 in a ceremony solemnised at Persatuan Buddhist (M) Cawangan Kechil Tangkak, Johor. There is one (1) child of the marriage, namely Wong Yu (No. Sijil Kelahiran: DN 35897; No. K/P: 170724-04-0131), a boy born on 24 July 2017 and presently aged eight (8) years. The child attends SRJK (C) Bukit Beruang in Melaka.

On 24 September 2025 the Petitioner Husband filed the Petition for Divorce (Enclosure 1). The Respondent Wife filed her Answer and Cross-Petition on 3 December 2025 (Enclosure 10). The Petitioner Husband filed his Reply to the Answer and Answer to the Cross-Petition on 6 January 2026 (Enclosure 11), and the Respondent Wife filed her Reply to the Answer to the Cross-Petition on 27 January 2026 (Enclosure 12). Pleadings accordingly closed on the substantive divorce.

On 4 February 2026 the Respondent Wife issued Enclosure 13, supported by the Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 14). The Petitioner Husband, on 23 February 2026, affirmed an Affidavit Verifying List of Documents (Enclosure 15), to which he annexed his List of Documents dated 25 February 2026 (Enclosure 16) and the documents themselves (Enclosure 17). On the same date he affirmed his Affidavit in Reply to Enclosure 13 (Enclosure 18). The Respondent Wife affirmed an Affidavit in Reply and an Affidavit in Rejoinder on 11 March 2026 (Enclosures 19 and 20 respectively). The parties exchanged Written Submissions and Reply Submissions in April 2026 (Enclosures 21 to 27).

Three matters arising from the affidavits are relevant. First, the Petitioner Husband is in employment with Melaka Straits Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd. and is a registered taxpayer (TIN: IG 21275812080) and a contributor to the Employees Provident Fund (Member No.: 18918379). These facts are not in dispute. Secondly, the matrimonial home is encumbered by a bank loan, the monthly instalments of which the Petitioner Husband has offered to bear in full until full settlement, whereupon he has further offered to transfer his one-half (1/2) share to the Respondent Wife within six (6) months. Thirdly, the Petitioner Husband has proposed monthly maintenance of RM3,000.00 for the child and RM7,000.00 for the Respondent Wife, in addition to certain other financial undertakings.

The Petitioner Husband, by Enclosures 16 and 17, has produced the documents listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1, comprising salary slips, payment vouchers and other remuneration records issued by Melaka Straits Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd., his income tax assessment statements, and his EPF statements. He has declined to produce the documents listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1, which comprise certain bank account statements in his name and the latest loan account statement in respect of the matrimonial home. It is in respect of Part 2 that the present application is contested.

I should record at this stage that the Petitioner Husband does not dispute the procedural form of the application. No objection has been taken on the grounds that the documents are insufficiently particularised, that the Court lacks jurisdiction, or that the procedure adopted under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 and Rule 24 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 is inappropriate. The Petitioner Husband's Reply Submissions dated 21 April 2026 (Enclosure 27) expressly state, at paragraph 3, that these matters are not raised. The contest is confined to the merits of the application by reference to the substantive elements of discovery. C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Three issues fall for determination:

Whether the documents sought in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Petitioner Husband's List of Documents are relevant to the matters in issue, namely the determination of child maintenance, spousal maintenance and the division of matrimonial assets under sections 76 and 77 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

(ii) Whether discovery of those documents is necessary, either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs, within the meaning of Order 24 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012; and, in that connection, whether the application is properly to be characterised as a fishing expedition.

(iii) Whether the grant of discovery in this case would have the impermissible effect of shifting the burden of proof from the Respondent Wife to the Petitioner Husband, contrary to section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950. [14] Of these three, the second is dispositive. The first is a necessary anterior question, but the relevance of the documents to the financial issues raised by the Cross-Petition is, when properly considered, not seriously open to doubt. The third raises a question of principle which can be shortly resolved. D. STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Discovery under the Rules of Court 2012 [15] Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 governs discovery of documents in civil proceedings, including matrimonial proceedings in this Division. The relevant provisions for present purposes are rules 3, 7, 7A and 8. Rule 8, on which the Petitioner Husband chiefly relies, provides: "On the hearing of an application for an order under rule 3,7 or 7A, the Court, if satisfied that discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the cause or matter, may dismiss or adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make such an order if and so far as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs." [16] The dual test of necessity for fair disposal or for saving costs is disjunctive. Either limb suffices. The discretion is structured: the Court must refuse discovery if neither limb is engaged, but where one or both are engaged, it remains for the Court to consider whether the discovery should be ordered, refused, or moulded.

(ii) The settled elements [17] The elements governing an application for discovery were canonically stated in Yekambaran Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581 (High Court) and have been consistently applied since. They were re-stated in ABX Logistics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Overseas Bechtel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2003] 7 CLJ 357 (High Court), and most recently reformulated in Thai Odyssey Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chuah Seong Keat & Ors [2025] MLJU 576 (High Court). Drawing the strands together, the conditions are these:

the documents sought must exist and must be identified with sufficient particularity;

they must be, or have been, within the possession, custody or power of the party from whom discovery is sought;

they must be relevant to a matter in issue in the proceedings;

a prima facie case must be shown discovery is not a means of trawling for material with which to construct a case;

the order must be necessary either for the fair disposal of the cause or matter, or for saving costs; and

the documents must be identifiable with sufficient clarity to enable an enforceable order to be made. [18] Of those conditions, the first, second and sixth are essentially formal; the third, fourth and fifth are substantive. The substantive conditions are interrelated. Relevance is logically prior to necessity. The fourth element, the prohibition on fishing expeditions, is the negative counterpart of the requirement of a prima facie case. The fifth, necessity, is what Order 24 rule 8 mandates.

(iii) Discovery in matrimonial proceedings [19] Although Order 24 applies of its own force to matrimonial proceedings (subject to Rule 24 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980), the manner in which the necessity and relevance criteria are applied is informed by the particular character of the substantive law being administered. The Court is concerned, under sections 76 and 77 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, to make an order which is, in its own statutory language, just. Section 76 directs the Court, in the division of matrimonial assets, to have regard to specified matters including the extent of contributions made by each party, the needs of the minor children, and the duration of the marriage. Section 77 confers a power to order maintenance of a wife having regard to the means and needs of the parties. Section 92, applied to children, is to similar effect. [20] Two consequences follow. First, the Court's task under sections 76 and 77 requires it to be in a position to make findings of fact about the parties' financial means, resources, liabilities and assets. Without such findings, the statutory criteria cannot be applied. Secondly, the parties are under a corresponding duty of full and frank financial disclosure. That duty is not novel and does not require statutory expression: it is a feature of matrimonial litigation in this jurisdiction, derived from the principles of equity and the inquisitorial flavour of family law proceedings, and consistent with the English authorities from which our family jurisdiction is derived. [21] The position was conveniently stated by the High Court at Shah Alam in Vijaya a/p Sundramoorthy v Vijayasoorya Krishnamurthy [2025] CLJU 3865 (High Court), a decision relied on by both sides. In that case, the Court allowed discovery of the husband's bank statements, credit card statements, particulars of income, income tax returns, EPF statements and immovable property records, holding that such documents were necessary and relevant in order to ascertain the apportionment of matrimonial assets and to enable the Court to come to an informed decision regarding the division of property, spousal maintenance and child maintenance. The learned Judge observed that information drawn from bank and credit statements and particulars of income is critical because such documents disclose the income and financial resources of the parties, which is the foundation upon which the division of assets and the determination of financial support necessarily depends. That reasoning, with which I respectfully agree, reflects the orthodox approach in this jurisdiction. [22] Two further authorities require notice. In Wong Sam Chai @ Wong Hin Yui v Tan Chooi Nee (P) [2022] 1 LNS 1187 (High Court), the Court reiterated, at paragraph [10], that the applicant for discovery in matrimonial proceedings bears the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are relevant to the action and that they are necessary either for the fair disposal of the cause or matter or for saving costs. That formulation is plainly correct. It does no more, however, than place the evidential responsibility of justifying the application on the moving party. It does not heighten the threshold for discovery in matrimonial proceedings; if anything, the matrimonial context tends to lower it, given the duty of disclosure to which I have referred. In Yeap Lily v Chong Chee Ming [2023] 1 LNS 1019 (High Court), the Court declined to order discovery of certain company documents on the basis that the petitioner's stated objective — to ascertain the respondent's income — could be achieved by alternative and less intrusive means, namely the income tax returns and pay slips. That decision turned on the nature of the documents there sought, namely third-party company records, and on the availability of equivalent material from less intrusive sources. The case is illustrative of the necessity inquiry; it does not establish a general rule that pay slips and tax returns are always sufficient.

(iv) Fishing expeditions [23] The metaphor of the fishing expedition has been judicially explored. In Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 75 (Singapore High Court), Choon Han Teck JC described a fishing expedition as the aimless trawling of an unlimited sea, in contrast to the case where the party concerned knows a specific and identifiable spot on which he wishes to drop a line. That description was adopted by Liza Chan JC in Ho King Min & Anor v Lee Meng Leng & Ors [2020] MLJU 1925 (High Court) and is consistent with the Malaysian authorities. [24] Two further principles emerge. First, in Kuah Kok Kim & Ors v Ernst & Young (a firm) [1997] 1 SLR 169 (Singapore Court of Appeal), the Court held that it suffices for the applicant to describe the documents sought by type or class with reasonable precision and to show that the class is relevant. The applicant is not required to particularise each individual document by name. That observation, although not binding on this Court, is consistent with the practical exigencies of an application for discovery and with the general approach in this jurisdiction. Secondly, in Nguang Chan @ Nguang Chan Liquor Trader & Ors v Hai-O Enterprise Bhd & Ors [2009] 5 MLJ 40 (Court of Appeal), the Court of Appeal affirmed that discovery should not be ordered where the plaintiff is merely fishing for evidence to prop up his case and where the order would be unduly oppressive on the party giving discovery. That statement of principle is authoritative.

Burden of proof [25] Section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 provides that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. That basic allocation of the burden of proof is undisturbed by an order for discovery. Discovery is procedural; it operates to ensure that the parties have access to documents within the possession of the other so that issues of fact can be litigated on the basis of full information. It is not an instrument by which the legal burden of proof shifts from one party to another. The decision in Kenwood Electronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v People's Audio Sdn Bhd & Ors [2003] 5 MLJ 276 (High Court), on which the Petitioner Husband places reliance, is to be read in its commercial context: an order requiring the defendants to disclose documents which would themselves go to the proof of a conspiracy to defraud, alleged by the plaintiff, was held in those particular circumstances to have the practical effect of relieving the plaintiff of an evidentiary burden which was its own to discharge. That case is not authority for any wider proposition that discovery generally has the effect of reversing the burden of proof, still less in matrimonial proceedings of this character. E. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION Issue (i): Relevance [26] The documents in Part 2 of Schedule 1 fall into two broad categories. The first is bank account statements in the name of the Petitioner Husband. The second is the latest loan account statement in respect of the matrimonial home. The relevance of each is to be tested by reference to the matters in issue in the Cross-Petition, which are child maintenance, spousal maintenance, and division of matrimonial assets. [27] The relevance of bank account statements to a determination of financial means under sections 76 and 77 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 is, in my judgment, self-evident. A bank statement records inflows and outflows. It is direct evidence of receipts, expenditure, savings, and the existence and movement of capital. It is capable of corroborating, supplementing or where appropriate qualifying the picture of income disclosed by salary slips, tax returns and EPF statements. Salary slips reflect remuneration paid by a single employer; they do not capture other income streams. Tax returns reflect declared taxable income; they do not, of themselves, disclose savings, capital movements, or expenditure patterns. EPF statements reflect statutory contributions; they say nothing of liquid means. Each of these documents addresses one dimension of financial circumstances. Bank statements integrate them. [28] In a maintenance inquiry, the Court is concerned not only with the gross income of the payer but with his actual financial means and his standard of living, both of which inform a judgment about reasonable provision for the payee and the children. In an inquiry under section 76 of the 1976 Act, the Court is concerned with the parties' assets and contributions, including assets held in liquid form. Bank statements bear directly on both inquiries. [29] The Petitioner Husband's submission that the documents already produced are "more than enough" reflects his own assessment of what the Court will require in order to make a just order. With respect, that is an assessment which it is for the Court, not the Petitioner Husband, to make. It is impossible to say at this stage, before the trial of the ancillary issues, that the Court will be satisfied with the limited categories of documents already produced. The very point of discovery is to ensure that, when the Court does come to make findings, it does so on a complete factual record. [30] The relevance of the loan account statement for the matrimonial home is equally clear. The matrimonial home is itself an asset to be divided. Its net value depends on the outstanding loan balance. The Petitioner Husband has offered to bear the monthly instalments until full settlement and thereafter to transfer his half-share to the Respondent Wife. The Court cannot evaluate the practicability or generosity of that offer without knowing the outstanding loan balance and the remaining tenure. The loan account statement is the simplest and most reliable source of that information. [31] I conclude on the first issue that the documents in Part 2 of Schedule 1 are relevant to the matters in issue. Issue (ii): Necessity and fishing expedition [32] The Petitioner Husband's principal objection is that, although the documents may be relevant, discovery is not necessary within the meaning of Order 24 rule 8. He invokes Syarikat V K Kalyanasundram Sdn Bhd v Kalyani Balasubramaniam & Ors [2023] 1 LNS 777 (High Court) for the proposition that relevance does not entail necessity, and for the further proposition that an application for discovery in the nature of a speculative inquiry will be refused. Neither proposition is doubted. The question is whether, on the facts before me, the documents in Part 2 of Schedule 1 cross the threshold of necessity and fall outside the description of speculative inquiry. [33] The Petitioner Husband's argument under this head proceeds on the implicit premise that, since salary slips, tax returns and EPF statements have been produced, anything further must be unnecessary. The premise misstates the test. The question under Order 24 rule 8 is not whether the documents already produced are sufficient in some general sense, but whether the further documents are necessary for the fair disposal of the cause or matter or for saving costs. Those are two distinct enquiries. [34] As to fair disposal: the function of discovery is to place the Court, and the opposing party, in possession of documentary material which is relevant to the issues. In ancillary matrimonial proceedings concerning the means of the parties, the Court's ability to dispose of those issues fairly turns on the fullness of the financial picture before it. Where one party offers a partial picture and resists production of further documents which would complete it, the case for ordering further production strengthens, not weakens. It is in this respect that the matrimonial context departs from the commercial context. In a commercial action where the dispute is over the construction of a contract or the existence of a misrepresentation, the documents most relevant are typically those directly evidencing the impugned transaction; collateral financial information is, ordinarily, not necessary. In a matrimonial action where the dispute is about the parties' means and the apportionment of matrimonial assets, the documents most relevant are precisely those evidencing the financial position of the parties. Bank statements and loan statements fall squarely within that description. [35] As to saving costs: the alternative to ordering discovery is not the avoidance of inquiry into the documents. It is, rather, that the inquiry will be conducted by way of cross-examination at trial, with affidavit evidence supplemented by interrogatories and the deployment of subpoenas duces tecum. That route is slower, more expensive, and more contentious. Pre-trial discovery, by contrast, allows the parties and the Court to identify the live disputes of fact early, to narrow the issues, and to dispose of points which on inspection of the documents are not, in truth, in dispute. In a case like the present, where the proposed maintenance figures (RM3,000.00 for the child and RM7,000.00 for the Respondent Wife) are in contention precisely because the parties disagree about the means of the Petitioner Husband, early disclosure of the financial documents is calculated to shorten, not to lengthen, the trial. [36] The reliance placed by the Petitioner Husband on Yeap Lily v Chong Chee Ming [2023] 1 LNS 1019 must be considered with some care. The Petitioner Husband draws from paragraph [15] of that decision the proposition that tax returns and pay slips are an adequate substitute for further discovery. With respect, that is to read the case more broadly than it can bear. The documents there refused were company documents that is, documents of a corporate vehicle, not personal records of the respondent. The Court took the view that the petitioner's objective of ascertaining the respondent's income could be achieved by means of his personal income documents without intruding into the affairs of the corporate vehicle. The present application does not seek company documents. It seeks the Petitioner Husband's own bank statements and the loan statement on a property in which the Respondent Wife herself has a registered half-interest. The privacy considerations which influenced the decision in Yeap Lily do not arise in the same way here. [37] The same point can be made of Syarikat VK Kalyanasundram Sdn Bhd v Kalyani Balasubramaniam (both at [2023] 1 LNS 777 and [2023] MLJU 964). Those were commercial proceedings concerning allegations of collusion and a fraudulent scheme. The bank statements sought were of a non-party, and the Court was not persuaded that those bank statements were necessary either for the fair disposal of the matter or for saving costs in that commercial context. The matrimonial context here is materially different. [38] The argument that the application is a fishing expedition cannot succeed on the facts. The documents are identified by reference to specific bank accounts in the name of the Petitioner Husband and to a specific loan account in respect of a specifically identified property. As the Singapore Court of Appeal observed in Kuah Kok Kim, at the passage I have already noted, where the applicant describes the type or class of documents with reasonable precision and that class is relevant to the cause of action, the description suffices. The Respondent Wife's application is not the aimless trawling of an unlimited sea, in the language of Thyssen Hunnebeck; she has, to retain the metaphor, identified the specific spot at which she wishes to drop her line. [39] Nor can the argument that an order would be unduly oppressive, in the sense considered by the Court of Appeal in Nguang Chan, be sustained. The documents are limited in number and scope. They are personal bank statements and a single loan account statement. They are documents which the Petitioner Husband ordinarily retains or has ready access to. Their production imposes no significant burden, and certainly no burden disproportionate to the importance of the matters in issue. [40] I conclude on the second issue that discovery is necessary, both for the fair disposal of the ancillary issues and for the saving of costs at trial, and that the application is not properly characterised as a fishing expedition. Issue (iii): The burden of proof [41] The third issue can be shortly disposed of. Section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 allocates the legal burden of proof to the party who asserts a fact. That allocation is unaffected by an order for discovery. The Respondent Wife, in seeking maintenance and a share of the matrimonial assets, retains the burden of establishing the facts upon which her entitlement and the quantum thereof depend. Discovery does not displace that burden; it operates at an anterior stage and is concerned with the availability of relevant documents to the parties and to the Court. [42] The Petitioner Husband's reliance on Kenwood Electronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v People's Audio Sdn Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 276 is to be considered in its context. The plaintiff there had pleaded a conspiracy to defraud, and sought discovery of documents which were themselves the central evidence of the conspiracy alleged. The Court there held that to compel the defendants to disclose such documents would, in effect, be to require them to produce the very evidence that the plaintiff was bound to bring forward. The present application is of a different kind. The Respondent Wife does not seek to compel the Petitioner Husband to produce evidence of any allegation of misconduct on his part. She seeks documents which evidence the financial means of the parties a matter on which the Court itself has a duty to be satisfied before it can make any order under sections 76 and 77 of the 1976 Act. [43] Further, and importantly, the underlying duty in matrimonial proceedings is one of full and frank disclosure on both sides. A party who proposes specific maintenance figures and undertakes to bear specific financial obligations after the dissolution of the marriage must be in a position to substantiate those proposals by reference to documents establishing his financial means. To object to the production of those very documents on the ground that the burden of proof rests on the other party is to invert the practical incidence of disclosure in family proceedings. It is also at odds with what is contemplated by the Court's inquiry into means. [44] In short, the order which the Respondent Wife seeks does not reverse the burden of proof. It facilitates the proper discharge by the Court of its statutory functions and by both parties of their procedural duties. I therefore reject the burden-of-proof objection.

(iv) Schedule 2 documents [45] For completeness, I record that no determination is required in respect of the documents in Schedule 2. The Petitioner Husband has stated on affidavit that the relevant accounts with AmBank (Malaysia) Berhad and OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad are no longer within his possession, custody or power. The Respondent Wife has, by paragraph 8 of her Reply Submissions dated 21 April 2026 (Enclosure 25), expressly accepted that explanation and confirmed that she does not insist on production. That concession is in keeping with the second of the Yekambaran Marimuthu elements, which requires that documents be, or have been, within the possession, custody or power of the party against whom the order is sought. No order is sought, and none is made, in respect of those documents.

The overall view [46] Stepping back from the particular submissions, the substance of this application can be put simply. The Respondent Wife seeks production of her husband's personal bank statements and the loan statement on the matrimonial home, in proceedings in which the ancillary financial reliefs depend on the means of the Petitioner Husband. The documents are personal to the Petitioner Husband (and, in the case of the loan statement, to a property in which the Respondent Wife herself has a registered interest); they are identified by reference to specific accounts and to a specific property; they exist; they are within his possession, custody or power; they are relevant; and they are necessary. The case for discovery is, on those facts, unobjectionable. To refuse it would be to leave the trial of the ancillary issues to proceed on a financial record which the Petitioner Husband alone controls and which, on the limited disclosure he has chosen to make, is incomplete. [47] The orthodox approach to discovery in matrimonial proceedings, exemplified by Vijaya a/p Sundramoorthy, supports the order sought. The authorities relied on by the Petitioner Husband, properly understood, do not displace it. F. CONCLUSION [48] For the reasons set out above, the Respondent Wife's application under Enclosure 13 is allowed in respect of the documents listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Petitioner Husband's List of Documents (Enclosure 16). No order is required, and none is made, in respect of the documents in Schedule 2. [49] Discovery in matrimonial proceedings of this character is the ordinary, not the exceptional, course. Where the ancillary financial reliefs are in contention, and where the documents sought go directly to the financial means of the parties, an order under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 will ordinarily issue unless some specific feature of the case displaces the orthodox approach. No such feature is present here. G. ORDERS OF THE COURT [50] Accordingly, I make the following orders:

The Petitioner Husband shall, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, make discovery on affidavit of the following documents which are within his possession, custody or power, and shall annex true copies of the said documents to the said affidavit:

Bank Account Statements Statements for the following bank accounts in the name of the Petitioner Husband (whether held solely or jointly, other than those identified in Schedule 2 of Enclosure 16) for the period from 1 November 2024 to the date of this Order (or, in respect of accounts closed before that date, up to the date of closure): No.BankType of AccountAccount Number1.Maybank (Malaysia)Akaun Bersama (Joint Account)1540354862052.Maybank (Malaysia)Sole Account1510892888113.Maybank (Singapore)Sole Account14070800465

Investment and Share Account Statements Statements for the following investment accounts for the period from 1 November 2024 to 3 December 2025:

Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad (ASNB) Statements Statements for the ASNB account of the Petitioner Husband (No. Ahli Pemegang Unit: 000009823425) for the period from 1 November 2024 to 27 January 2026.

Salary / Income Slips Salary slips, payment vouchers or other remuneration records from Melaka Straits Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd. for the period from 1 February 2026 to the date of this Order.

EPF Statement The latest statement of the Petitioner Husband's Employees Provident Fund (KWSP) account (Member No. 18918379) as at a date not earlier than fourteen (14) days before the date of this Order.

Loan Account Statement for the Matrimonial Home The latest statement of the bank loan account in respect of the matrimonial home held under Hakmilik No. PN 66450, Lot No. 34141 (formerly HS(D) 84704, PT 25725), Mukim Bukit Katil, Daerah Melaka Tengah, Negeri Melaka, with address at No. 30, Jalan MH 4/1, Taman Mezaffar Heights, 75450 Ayer Keroh, Melaka, as at a date not earlier than fourteen (14) days before the date of this Order.

The affidavit of discovery shall state whether the said documents are, or have at any time been, within the Petitioner Husband's possession, custody or power, and if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with them and what has become of them.

True and complete copies of all documents disclosed shall be annexed as exhibits to the said affidavit and shall be paginated and bound in accordance with Order 24 rule 5(4) of the Rules of Court 2012.

The Respondent Wife or her solicitors may inspect the said documents and take copies thereof at the offices of the Respondent Wife's solicitors within seven (7) days after service of the affidavit of discovery, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree in writing. The Petitioner Husband shall, upon reasonable notice, make available for inspection any original document where a copy has been produced.

No order is made in respect of the documents listed in Schedule 2 of the List of Documents (Enclosure 16) (namely, accounts said to be maintained with AmBank (Malaysia) Berhad and OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad), the Respondent Wife having accepted the Petitioner Husband's explanation that the said documents are not within his possession, custody or power.

All further proceedings in Petition for Divorce No. MA-33-77 10/2025, including the trial of the ancillary reliefs, are hereby stayed until the Petitioner Husband has fully complied with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Order.

The Petitioner Husband shall pay to the Respondent Wife the costs of and incidental to Enclosure 13, which are hereby fixed at RM 5,000.00 (Ringgit Malaysia Three Thousand Only), subject to allocator.

The parties are at liberty to apply to the Court for further directions or relief as may be necessary, including in the event of any difficulty arising in the implementation of this Order or if any party fails to comply with its terms. Dated 25 May 2026 (MELAKA) Lawyer For Petitioner : Encik Tan Wei Sheng bersama Cik Joanne Ng Kar Mun Tetuan Tam Yuen Hung & Co. Peguambela dan Peguamcara C-65-1, Jalan C180/1, Dataran C180, 43200 Cheras, Selangor. Lawyer For Respondent : Encik Lee Kuang Chaow Tetuan KC Lee & Associates Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 34-1, Jalan KSB 1, Taman Kota Syahbandar, 75200 Melaka.