PEMPETISYEN PATRICIA PAULINE A/P MARIASOOSAY RAVENDRAN A/L RAMASAMY PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN Adrian Sunil George A/l George

PEMPETISYEN PATRICIA PAULINE A/P MARIASOOSAY RAVENDRAN A/L RAMASAMY PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN Adrian Sunil George A/l George

On the evidence the Respondent engaged in a pattern of molestation (broadly defined to include psychological harassment and intimidating conduct) materially affecting the Petitioner's mental health and the child's welfare; there were serious issues to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured restraining the Respondent's access to the matrimonial home pending final disposal; proprietary rights did not bar relief under s103 and relevant rules of court; therefore a non-molestation injunction was justified and made.

Citation
BA-33-493-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: PATRICIA PAULINE A/P MARIASOOSAY; Respondent: RAVENDRAN A/L RAMASAMY; Party Cited: ADRIAN SUNIL GEORGE A/L GEORGE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Case Number
BA-33-493-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition With Interlocutory Application for Non Molestation Injunction / Interlocutory (application Pursuant to S103 Law Reform (marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 Pending Final Disposal)
Outcome
Non-molestation injunction granted in favour of the Petitioner pending final disposal of the divorce petition
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Order, Custody and Care, Maintenance, Allegation of Adultery, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Injunctions Matrimonial Property Non Molestation Order Custody and Care Maintenance Allegation of Adultery Balance of Convenience

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PATRICIA PAULINE A/P MARIASOOSAY

Petitioner

RAVENDRAN A/L RAMASAMY

Respondent

ADRIAN SUNIL GEORGE A/L GEORGE

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition With Interlocutory Application for Non Molestation Injunction / Interlocutory (application Pursuant to S103 Law Reform (marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 Pending Final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-molestation injunction under s103 LRA 1976 should be granted pending disposal of the divorce petition
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's proprietary rights in the house preclude granting an injunction
  3. 3 Whether allegations of adultery are relevant to the instant injunctive application

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Respondent engaged in a pattern of molestation (broadly defined to include psychological harassment and intimidating conduct) materially affecting the Petitioner's mental health and the child's welfare; there were serious issues to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured restraining the Respondent's access to the matrimonial home pending final disposal; proprietary rights did not bar relief under s103 and relevant rules of court; therefore a non-molestation injunction was justified and made.

Court Disposition

Non-molestation injunction granted in favour of the Petitioner pending final disposal of the divorce petition

Orders

  • Respondent is ordered to stay away from the matrimonial home and to refrain from molesting, harassing and threatening the Petitioner until final disposal of the petition for divorce (order dated 14 March 2025)