AJS JMH

AJS JMH

Section 3(3) of the LRA, read literally and in light of legislative history and constitutional demarcation (Article 121(1A)), excludes Muslims from the application of the LRA in toto; although s58 permits claims for damages in judicial separation by virtue of s64(1) and s54, a Muslim respondent is incapable of being condemned under the LRA, and the exclusion does not violate Articles 5(1) or 8(1) given constitutional provision and Art 8(5)(a).

Citation
02(i)-77-11/2020(W),02(i)-82-12-2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: AJS; Respondent: JMH
Court
i
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 December 2021
Case Number
02(i)-77-11/2020(W),02(i)-82-12-2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family Law) Concerning Judicial Separation and Interpretation of LRA / Final Judgment of the Federal Court (dismissal of Appeals)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Adultery and Damages Against Co Respondent, Law Reform (marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 S3(3) and S58, Article 121(1 A) Jurisdictional Demarcation, Articles 5 and 8 (liberty and Equality)
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Islamic/syariah Personal Law Judicial Separation Adultery and Damages Against Co Respondent Law Reform (marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 S3(3) and S58 Article 121(1 A) Jurisdictional Demarcation +1 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AJS

Appellant

JMH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family Law) Concerning Judicial Separation and Interpretation of LRA / Final Judgment of the Federal Court (dismissal of Appeals)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s3(3) LRA excludes application of the Act to Muslims generally or only to marriages solemnised under Muslim law
  2. 2 Whether a Muslim can be named and condemned in damages as co-respondent under s58 in judicial separation proceedings
  3. 3 Whether interpreting s3(3) literally violates Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(3) of the LRA, read literally and in light of legislative history and constitutional demarcation (Article 121(1A)), excludes Muslims from the application of the LRA in toto; although s58 permits claims for damages in judicial separation by virtue of s64(1) and s54, a Muslim respondent is incapable of being condemned under the LRA, and the exclusion does not violate Articles 5(1) or 8(1) given constitutional provision and Art 8(5)(a).

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed with costs
  • Respondent struck out from the judicial separation petition insofar as relief under the LRA is sought