PEMPETISYEN I C O A K U

PEMPETISYEN I C O A K U

Respondent's conduct caused the irretrievable breakdown; divorce granted. Respondent failed to prove transmission of herpes and failed to call medical evidence, so damages and loss of consortium dismissed; tort claim also time‑barred under Limitation Act and improperly pursued within divorce proceedings. Respondent not entitled to maintenance because she is capable of earning and her conduct contributed to breakdown; court ordered sale of the Property with proceeds (or shortfall and sale costs) divided 70:30 in favour of Petitioner and vehicle to Respondent; costs related to sale borne 70:30.

Citation
WA-33-260-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner (husband): ICO; Respondent (wife): AKU
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Case Number
WA-33-260-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition and Cross Petition / Final Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Petition and cross-petition allowed only to the extent of dissolving the marriage; vehicle awarded to respondent; Property to be sold and proceeds (or shortfall and sale costs) divided 70:30 in favour of Petitioner:Respondent; all other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Spousal Maintenance, Damages for Personal Injury (alleged Herpes), Limitation Period, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act, Gift Vs Joint Purchase
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Property Law Contract Law Tort Law Evidence Law Limitation Law Divorce +7 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 9 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICO

Petitioner (husband)

AKU

Respondent (wife)

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition and Cross Petition / Final Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's behaviour amounted to conduct making it unreasonable for petitioner to live with respondent under s54(1)(b) LR(MD)A 1976
  2. 2 Whether respondent proved she contracted a sexually transmitted disease from petitioner and is entitled to damages and loss of consortium
  3. 3 Whether respondent entitled to spousal maintenance and in what amount

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent's conduct caused the irretrievable breakdown; divorce granted. Respondent failed to prove transmission of herpes and failed to call medical evidence, so damages and loss of consortium dismissed; tort claim also time‑barred under Limitation Act and improperly pursued within divorce proceedings. Respondent not entitled to maintenance because she is capable of earning and her conduct contributed to breakdown; court ordered sale of the Property with proceeds (or shortfall and sale costs) divided 70:30 in favour of Petitioner and vehicle to Respondent; costs related to sale borne 70:30.

Court Disposition

Petition and cross-petition allowed only to the extent of dissolving the marriage; vehicle awarded to respondent; Property to be sold and proceeds (or shortfall and sale costs) divided 70:30 in favour of Petitioner:Respondent; all other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Decree nisi granting divorce (dissolution of marriage)
  • Respondent to retain vehicle; petitioner relinquishes any claim to vehicle