PEMPETISYEN SARANYA A/P RAMACHANDARAN 1. ) SATHISWARAN SACHEIN A/L SATHASIVAM 2. ) DHIVYA SUBASHINI A/P MUNUSAMY

PEMPETISYEN SARANYA A/P RAMACHANDARAN 1. ) SATHISWARAN SACHEIN A/L SATHASIVAM 2. ) DHIVYA SUBASHINI A/P MUNUSAMY

The Amended Divorce Petition was struck out because the petitioner filed it without first obtaining the conciliatory body's certificate (JPN.KC29) or securing a court dispensation by a separate inter partes application under Section 106 LRA 1976; non-compliance rendered the petition scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of process and met the threshold for striking out under Order 18 r.19 ROC 2012.

Citation
BA-33-734-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Wife: Saranya A/P Ramachandran; Respondent Husband: Sathiswaran Sachein A/L Sathasivam; Co Respondent: Dhivya Subashini A/P Munusamy
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Case Number
BA-33-734-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Petition for Divorce / Interlocutory: Application to Strike Out Amended Divorce Petition Decided (allowed)
Outcome
Application allowed; Amended Divorce Petition struck out
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Reconciliation Requirement, Section 106 LRA, Conciliatory Body Certificate (jpn.kc29), Abuse of Process, Dispensation/exemption Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Striking Out Reconciliation Requirement Section 106 LRA Conciliatory Body Certificate (jpn.kc29) Abuse of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saranya A/P Ramachandran

Petitioner Wife

Sathiswaran Sachein A/L Sathasivam

Respondent Husband

Dhivya Subashini A/P Munusamy

Co Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Divorce / Interlocutory: Application to Strike Out Amended Divorce Petition Decided (allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Divorce Petition is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the Amended Divorce Petition constitutes an abuse of the process of court
  3. 3 Whether Section 106 LRA 1976 mandates prior referral to a conciliatory body and production of JPN.KC29 before filing a divorce petition

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Divorce Petition was struck out because the petitioner filed it without first obtaining the conciliatory body's certificate (JPN.KC29) or securing a court dispensation by a separate inter partes application under Section 106 LRA 1976; non-compliance rendered the petition scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of process and met the threshold for striking out under Order 18 r.19 ROC 2012.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Amended Divorce Petition struck out

Orders

  • Amended Divorce Petition struck out
  • Costs awarded to Respondent Husband