GIRISH CHANDRA A/L HEMRAJ SHASTRI XXXX

GIRISH CHANDRA A/L HEMRAJ SHASTRI XXXX

Set aside the High Court’s order in respect of the Setapak Shoplot because it was sold long before and is an asset of separate companies not before the court and there was no evidence of mala fide linking appellant to continuing beneficial ownership; uphold the High Court’s order in respect of the Titiwangsa House because the trial judge permissibly found it was a matrimonial asset and that the appellant disposed of it mala fide to defeat the respondent’s claim, therefore section 76 authorizes awarding the respondent a sum equivalent to 50% of the current market value as at 11.2.2022; resulting trust claims against non‑parties (the companies) are incompetent without joining them.

Citation
W-02(W)-475-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Petitioner (husband): Girish Chandra a/l Hemraj Shastri; Respondent / Respondent (wife): Jyoti Sharma
Court
W
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 September 2025
Case Number
W-02(W)-475-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (divorce / Matrimonial) / Court of Appeal Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Division of Matrimonial Assets, Section 76 Law Reform (marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, Resulting Trust, Separate Legal Personality of Companies, Mala Fide Disposition of Assets, Custody and Maintenance
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Property Trust Law Company Law Evidence Division of Matrimonial Assets Section 76 Law Reform (marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 Resulting Trust +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Girish Chandra a/l Hemraj Shastri

Appellant / Petitioner (husband)

Jyoti Sharma

Respondent / Respondent (wife)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (divorce / Matrimonial) / Court of Appeal Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Setapak Shoplot and the Titiwangsa House are matrimonial assets
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to order the appellant to pay 50% of the current market value of the properties under section 76
  3. 3 Whether a resulting trust claim is competent when the alleged trustees (companies) are not parties

Ratio Decidendi

Set aside the High Court’s order in respect of the Setapak Shoplot because it was sold long before and is an asset of separate companies not before the court and there was no evidence of mala fide linking appellant to continuing beneficial ownership; uphold the High Court’s order in respect of the Titiwangsa House because the trial judge permissibly found it was a matrimonial asset and that the appellant disposed of it mala fide to defeat the respondent’s claim, therefore section 76 authorizes awarding the respondent a sum equivalent to 50% of the current market value as at 11.2.2022; resulting trust claims against non‑parties (the companies) are incompetent without joining them.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • High Court order as to Setapak Shoplot set aside (order for 50% share/quanta in respect of Setapak Shoplot vacated)
  • High Court decision affirmed in respect of the Titiwangsa House; appellant ordered to pay respondent a sum equivalent to 50% of the current market value of the Titiwangsa House as at 11.2.2022