NNT LAIN-LAIN PEMPETISYEN VKR

NNT LAIN-LAIN PEMPETISYEN VKR

The court found the petitioner had lived apart for the requisite continuous two years and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down; the cross-petition alleging unreasonable behaviour and desertion by the petitioner failed because evidence showed the respondent instigated and sustained the breakdown and non-consummation was due to the respondent; respondent was not entitled to maintenance or damages as she was financially independent and no statutory basis existed for her claims.

Citation
JA-33-310-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner (husband): VKR; Respondent (wife): NNT
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 October 2021
Case Number
JA-33-310-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed; Cross-Petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Unreasonable Behaviour, Desertion, Separation Period (two Years), Maintenance, Non Consummation, Nullity, Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Divorce Unreasonable Behaviour Desertion Separation Period (two Years) Maintenance Non Consummation +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VKR

Petitioner (husband)

NNT

Respondent (wife)

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years to prove breakdown under s54(1)(d)
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner had deserted the respondent or whether respondent had constructively deserted petitioner
  3. 3 Whether non-consummation amounted to unreasonable behaviour or ground for annulment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the petitioner had lived apart for the requisite continuous two years and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down; the cross-petition alleging unreasonable behaviour and desertion by the petitioner failed because evidence showed the respondent instigated and sustained the breakdown and non-consummation was due to the respondent; respondent was not entitled to maintenance or damages as she was financially independent and no statutory basis existed for her claims.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; Cross-Petition dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Petition allowed; Cross-Petition dismissed with costs.