Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dispensation of parental consent

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2026

1. ) JEGATHISH A/L MANIMARAN 2. ) TAMILARISI A/P ARUMUGAM 1. ) RITHISHAN A/L GOPAL KRISNAN 2. ) GOPAL KRISNAN A/L ARUMUGAM 3. ) SHOBANA A/P MOORTHY 4. ) 1.JABATAN KEBAJIKAN MASYARAKAT

Citation

JA-58-131-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-58-131-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Applying s.5(1) Adoption Act 1952 and the hypothetical reasonable parent objective test (as articulated in Re: Baby M and related authorities), the Court found the natural parents had not demonstrated capacity to meet the autistic child's special needs and had effectively failed to provide stable, continuous care; the applicants had provided long‑term care, education and stability; therefore the Court dispensed with the natural parents' consent and dismissed the application to set aside the adoption order dated 13/6/2025, upholding the adoption order.
6 Sept 2024

1. ) BALACHANDAR A/L RATHNAM 2. ) DAIVANAI A/P SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) NIROSSHA BALACHANDAR 2. ) PEGAWAI KEBAJIKAN MASYARAKAT DAERAH KLANG

Citation

BL-58-36-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-58-36-03/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application was dismissed because material contradictions between the applicants' sworn affidavits and the birth certificate left the child's identity and parental status uncertain; the guardian ad litem's statutory duty to verify identity under s.13 had not been satisfied; the biological mother's consent had not been dispensed with; and the court cannot rectify registry entries which must be corrected by the Registrar, therefore the adoption order could not be granted.
1 Jan 1900

1. ) 1. HANESHPAL SINGH SAINI (NO. K/P: 900413-08-5991) 2. ) 2. GAYATRI A/P SIVANESAN (NO. K/P: 831224-07-5536) 1. ) 1. NIESHAN A/L VIJAYAGOPAL (SIJIL KELAHIRAN : CH 77113) 2. ) 2. VIJAYAGOPAL A/L NADARAJAN (NO. K/P: 781117-02-5899) 3. ) JA

Citation

PA-12B-15-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-15-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Mere absence or inadequate paternal involvement does not satisfy the statutory thresholds for abandonment or neglect under proviso (a) and does not render withholding of consent unreasonable under proviso (c); because the father did not have custody and the children's welfare was being met, there was no justification to dispense with the father's consent and the appeals must be dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) JEGATHISH A/L MANIMARAN 2. ) TAMILARISI A/P ARUMUGAM 1. ) RITHISHAN A/L GOPAL KRISNAN 2. ) GOPAL KRISNAN A/L ARUMUGAM 3. ) SHOBANA A/P MOORTHY 4. ) 1.JABATAN KEBAJIKAN MASYARAKAT

1. ) BALACHANDAR A/L RATHNAM 2. ) DAIVANAI A/P SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) NIROSSHA BALACHANDAR 2. ) PEGAWAI KEBAJIKAN MASYARAKAT DAERAH KLANG

1. ) 1. HANESHPAL SINGH SAINI (NO. K/P: 900413-08-5991) 2. ) 2. GAYATRI A/P SIVANESAN (NO. K/P: 831224-07-5536) 1. ) 1. NIESHAN A/L VIJAYAGOPAL (SIJIL KELAHIRAN : CH 77113) 2. ) 2. VIJAYAGOPAL A/L NADARAJAN (NO. K/P: 781117-02-5899) 3. ) JA