PEMPETISYEN DR. SHIVANI A/P NAGANDRAN 1. ) DR. RAJ KUMAR A/L S. MAHARAJAH 2. ) Cherry Hamdi Ramos PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN AIA BHD.

PEMPETISYEN DR. SHIVANI A/P NAGANDRAN 1. ) DR. RAJ KUMAR A/L S. MAHARAJAH 2. ) Cherry Hamdi Ramos PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN AIA BHD.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate special grounds under section 58 LRA 1976 or to justify the seven-month delay and prior knowledge of the alleged adulterer; no credible steps or evidence were shown to locate the alleged co-respondent or to prove impecuniosity; amendment is not justified given unexplained delay and prejudice can be compensated only by costs; petitioner elected exemption prayer and cannot rely on alternative; therefore application to be excused or to amend is dismissed.

Citation
BA-33-503-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Wife: Dr. Shivani A/P Nagandran; Respondent Husband: Dr. Raj Kumar A/L S. Maharajah; Alleged Co Respondent (proposed): Cherry Hamdi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 July 2024
Case Number
BA-33-503-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition (adultery) Under Law Reform (marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 / Interlocutory Application to Be Excused From Naming or to Add Co Respondent; Application Dismissed With Costs; Petitioner Has Appealed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Adultery, Leave to Add or Excuse Co Respondent, Delay and Laches, Amendment of Petition, Service of Process, Damages for Adultery, Election Between Alternative Prayers
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Divorce Civil Procedure Evidence Adultery Leave to Add or Excuse Co Respondent Delay and Laches Amendment of Petition +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Shivani A/P Nagandran

Petitioner Wife

Dr. Raj Kumar A/L S. Maharajah

Respondent Husband

Cherry Hamdi

Alleged Co Respondent (proposed)

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition (adultery) Under Law Reform (marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 / Interlocutory Application to Be Excused From Naming or to Add Co Respondent; Application Dismissed With Costs; Petitioner Has Appealed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioner established 'special grounds' under section 58 LRA 1976 to be excused from naming alleged adulterer as co-respondent
  2. 2 Whether leave to amend petition to add co-respondent should be granted under Rule 15 DMPR 1980 despite delay
  3. 3 Whether petitioner’s delay and lack of steps to locate the alleged co-respondent amount to laches barring relief

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner failed to demonstrate special grounds under section 58 LRA 1976 or to justify the seven-month delay and prior knowledge of the alleged adulterer; no credible steps or evidence were shown to locate the alleged co-respondent or to prove impecuniosity; amendment is not justified given unexplained delay and prejudice can be compensated only by costs; petitioner elected exemption prayer and cannot rely on alternative; therefore application to be excused or to amend is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Enclosure 32 dismissed with costs
  • No leave granted to excuse or to add Cherry Hamdi as co-respondent on the grounds presented