PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Tamby Raja A/L Perumal 2. ) Satiavathi A/P Kayambu

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Tamby Raja A/L Perumal 2. ) Satiavathi A/P Kayambu

The application was dismissed because it either constituted an improper re-hearing that did not comply with Rule 44 or improperly sought variation of matrimonial asset division which is final under section 76; the applicant failed to rebut the presumption she knew and consented to the signed documents and failed to satisfactorily explain an eight-month delay, therefore relief under sections 83 or 96 was not available.

Citation
WA-33JP-534-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Wife: Satiavathi A/P Kayambu; Petitioner Husband: Tamby Raja A/L Perumal
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 January 2023
Case Number
WA-33JP-534-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Joint Petition for Divorce / Application to Rescind/vary Final Divorce Order (dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Divorce, Custody, Maintenance, Matrimonial Assets, Rescission/variation of Orders, Delay and Procedural Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Civil Procedure Divorce Custody Maintenance Matrimonial Assets Rescission/variation of Orders Delay and Procedural Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satiavathi A/P Kayambu

Petitioner Wife

Tamby Raja A/L Perumal

Petitioner Husband

Procedural Posture

Joint Petition for Divorce / Application to Rescind/vary Final Divorce Order (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was properly framed or effectively a barred re-hearing under Rule 44
  2. 2 Whether sections 83 or 96 could be invoked to vary/rescind orders touching matrimonial assets
  3. 3 Whether the order was based on misrepresentation or mistake of fact sufficient to justify rescission/variation

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it either constituted an improper re-hearing that did not comply with Rule 44 or improperly sought variation of matrimonial asset division which is final under section 76; the applicant failed to rebut the presumption she knew and consented to the signed documents and failed to satisfactorily explain an eight-month delay, therefore relief under sections 83 or 96 was not available.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs