PEMPETISYEN Loh Siew Hong NAGAHSWARAN A/L MUNIANDY PENCELAH MAJLIS AGAMA DAN ISTIADAT MELAYU PERLIS

PEMPETISYEN Loh Siew Hong NAGAHSWARAN A/L MUNIANDY PENCELAH MAJLIS AGAMA DAN ISTIADAT MELAYU PERLIS

Petitioner complied with procedural requirements and established specific grounds; respondent had knowledge of and wilfully disobeyed the four court orders, delay was excused by pandemic, avoidance and imprisonment, and failure of strict personal service did not prejudice the respondent; therefore leave to commence committal was valid and committal was warranted with a fine and conditional imprisonment.

Citation
WA-33-734-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PETITIONER: Loh Siew Hong; RESPONDENT: Nagahswaran a/l Muniandy; INTERVENER: Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Perlis (MAIPs)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 April 2023
Case Number
WA-33-734-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Proceedings With Committal for Contempt (family Law) / Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Committal application allowed; Setting Aside Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Conversion of Religion, Committal Proceedings, Service of Court Orders, Delay/laches, Enforcement of Orders, Penal Endorsement
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Child Custody Conversion of Religion Committal Proceedings Service of Court Orders +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loh Siew Hong

PETITIONER

Nagahswaran a/l Muniandy

RESPONDENT

Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Perlis (MAIPs)

INTERVENER

Procedural Posture

Divorce Proceedings With Committal for Contempt (family Law) / Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner delayed unduly in bringing committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Order 52 statement complied with Order 52(2) of the Rules of Court 2012
  3. 3 Whether the Second, Third and Fourth Court Orders were properly served under Order 45 rule 7

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner complied with procedural requirements and established specific grounds; respondent had knowledge of and wilfully disobeyed the four court orders, delay was excused by pandemic, avoidance and imprisonment, and failure of strict personal service did not prejudice the respondent; therefore leave to commence committal was valid and committal was warranted with a fine and conditional imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Committal application allowed; Setting Aside Application dismissed

Orders

  • Committal application against respondent allowed
  • Setting Aside Application dismissed