Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Custody and care

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2025

PEMPETISYEN KONG WAN LOOI 1. ) ONG POO LEE 2. ) CHEN VIN CI

Citation

JA-33-534-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-33-534-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Appellant's solicitors flagrantly failed to comply with mandatory pre-trial directions and an unless order, offering no cogent justification; established authorities permit striking out for such contumelious non-compliance and consequently the Court struck out Enclosure 1 and allowed R1's Cross Petition with the specified orders.
11 Nov 2024

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

Citation

BA-33-493-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33-493-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
20 Sept 2024

NANTHINI A/P SUBRAMANIAM ERIC STEVEN A/L MATHALAI MUTHU

Citation

AA-24F-140-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24F-140-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying the welfare principle and considering the children's expressed preference, social welfare and counselling reports, and the stability and caregiving environment provided by the Respondent and his family, the presumption in favour of the mother was rebutted; sole custody, care and control was awarded to the Respondent while granting liberal and specified overnight access to the Applicant, with police assistance authorised for enforcement and each party to bear their own costs.
25 Apr 2024

SOLAIMUTHARASAN A/L SITARAMAN MENAGA A/P VELATHYAN

Citation

NA-24F-116-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-24F-116-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court applied the paramount welfare principle, found that joint guardianship was appropriate under the Guardianship of Infants Act, but that care, control and custody should remain with the mother as primary caregiver given the children's ages (one under seven and one with ADHD), the mother's proven caregiving role, absence of medical evidence supporting the father's allegations of the mother's incapacity, and unchallenged evidence of domestic violence by the father. Accordingly the father's application for sole decision-making was dismissed; the father was granted structured access, orde…
22 Jun 2022

B S O J E H

Citation

WA-24F-108-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-108-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Presumption under s88(3) favoured the mother and was not rebutted; the Respondent's admitted and evidenced substance abuse (cannabis use), alcohol misuse (including drink‑driving admissions) and related conduct created a real and unacceptable risk to the child's welfare and supervisory needs. Private immoral conduct not shown to impact the child was discounted. Therefore sole guardianship and custody were awarded to the Applicant while limited supervised day access was granted to the Respondent.
23 Nov 2021

1. ) H 2. ) W(F) W(F)(2)

Citation

xxxxxx (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

xxxxxx (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying s11 (welfare paramount) and s10 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, the court found the child's welfare required removal of the testamentary guardian and appointment of the biological father as sole guardian of the person because the plaintiffs offered better financial resources, a stable home, supportive social welfare reports, evidence of willingness by the Second Plaintiff to care for the child, the defendant had obstructed access and parties could not act jointly; the existing ex parte order did not immunize the defendant from removal under s10 when welfare required change.

Malaysia Case Law

PEMPETISYEN KONG WAN LOOI 1. ) ONG POO LEE 2. ) CHEN VIN CI

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

NANTHINI A/P SUBRAMANIAM ERIC STEVEN A/L MATHALAI MUTHU

SOLAIMUTHARASAN A/L SITARAMAN MENAGA A/P VELATHYAN

B S O J E H

1. ) H 2. ) W(F) W(F)(2)