PEMPETISYEN YONG JIA HUI CHAN SEH WAI

PEMPETISYEN YONG JIA HUI CHAN SEH WAI

The application was dismissed because the claimed MYR34,283.05 did not constitute 'payment of periodical sums' under the statutory definition of a maintenance order but consisted of discretionary, non-periodic expenses incurred unilaterally by the Applicant for which the Respondent was not liable; moreover an attachment of earnings order would be unjust given the Respondent's regular payment of the contractual monthly RM2,000 child maintenance.

Citation
WA-33JP-803-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant (wife): YONG JIA HUI; Respondent (husband): CHAN SEH WAI
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 March 2023
Case Number
WA-33JP-803-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition With Enforcement of Maintenance Application / High Court Application for Attachment of Earnings Under Married Women and Children (enforcement of Maintenance) Act 1968
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to Respondent.
Legal Topics
Attachment of Earnings, Definition of Maintenance Order, Periodical Sums, Liability for Unilateral Expenses, Joint Guardianship Duties, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Maintenance Enforcement Guardianship Civil Procedure Attachment of Earnings Definition of Maintenance Order Periodical Sums Liability for Unilateral Expenses +2 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YONG JIA HUI

Applicant (wife)

CHAN SEH WAI

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition With Enforcement of Maintenance Application / High Court Application for Attachment of Earnings Under Married Women and Children (enforcement of Maintenance) Act 1968

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum claimed falls within the statutory definition of a 'maintenance order' (periodical sums)
  2. 2 Whether the claimed amounts are periodical payments or irregular/discretionary expenses
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent is liable for expenses incurred unilaterally by the Applicant without consultation

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the claimed MYR34,283.05 did not constitute 'payment of periodical sums' under the statutory definition of a maintenance order but consisted of discretionary, non-periodic expenses incurred unilaterally by the Applicant for which the Respondent was not liable; moreover an attachment of earnings order would be unjust given the Respondent's regular payment of the contractual monthly RM2,000 child maintenance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to Respondent.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Respondent