Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Custody and access

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2026

SATHIAH A/P SHANMUGAM SURESH A/L BALAKRISHNAN

Citation

JA-24NCvC-24-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-24-01/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Contemporaneous documentary evidence and the audio recording do not support a finding of genuine, free and informed consent on 03.12.2025; the junior counsel lacked authority to bind the Applicant on ancillary matters; the Enforcement Order was obtained without adequate notice and granted disproportionate powers; accordingly both the Consent Order (03.12.2025) and the Enforcement Order (11.12.2025) are set aside, the Divorce Petition is restored for full hearing and interim custody/access revert to the prior High Court of Muar orders.
27 Jul 2025

PEMPETISYEN TAN SHEE PENG LEE BEE AI

Citation

KA-33-77-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-33-77-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner's allegations of serious and frequent physical assault were not proved on the balance of probabilities (no admissible medical evidence and no police reports); the petitioner bore a greater degree of responsibility for the breakdown by abandoning the family; consequently custody was awarded to the Respondent for the children's welfare, financial orders were set having regard to means, needs and responsibility (spousal maintenance RM800 monthly, child maintenance RM1,000 per child monthly), the House was classified as matrimonial and orders made to secure accommodation and protect ch…
23 Jul 2025

Andrew Gregory Sewell Low Huei Ying

Citation

WA-24F-245-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-245-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The leave order was not set aside because Order 52, not Order 29, governs committal leave; the Order 52 statement sufficiently particularised the alleged breaches; dispensing with personal service and serving Defendant's solicitors was just and caused no prejudice; the Defendant wilfully and deliberately breached the Consent Order by enrolling the child so as to curtail court‑ordered access and was therefore in contempt; committal allowed, but only a reprimand and costs were ordered given the defendant's status as mother and proportionality of sanction.
11 Jul 2025

PEMPETISYEN LETCHUMY A/P RENGANATHAN REGUNATH A/L VASUDEVAN PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN Kaviyarasu Kathiraian

Citation

NA-33-212-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-33-212-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent order dated 27/6/2022 remains valid and binding until it is properly set aside; withdrawal of the originating summons did not terminate the consent order; the petitioner was required to apply to set aside or vary that consent order by proper procedure, and having failed to do so the petitioner's interim application was dismissed with costs.
5 Dec 2024

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) JEGANATHAN A/L KANUSAMY 2. ) SANTHI A/P MUNIANDY

Citation

KA-33JP-34-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-33JP-34-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Procedural defects were minor and did not defeat the application; the Court had jurisdiction under sections 96 and 97 LRA 1976 to vary a consent order where there is a material change of circumstances, and the evidence established that the wife had borne the financial burden and that the children’s needs had increased, justifying an upward revision of maintenance and transfer of the husband’s half share of the matrimonial property.
24 Sept 2024

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) G O N G 2. ) H O N G

Citation

WA-33JP-168-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33JP-168-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed: applicant failed to comply with Rule 63 disclosure obligations and failed to prove on the balance of probabilities any material change in circumstances warranting variation of the consent Court Order; consent order upheld, guardianship to remain joint, and attachment of earnings refused on procedural and discretionary grounds.
19 Apr 2024

PEMPETISYEN RAJAKUMAR A/L V MARIAPPAN VIJIYA A/P SELVARAJOO

Citation

AB-33-25-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-33-25-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applying s.76 and related provisions, the court found on balance of probabilities that RW made substantial non-financial contributions and PH had additional undisclosed income; ordered equality-focused division where appropriate: 50% of proceeds of matrimonial home, oil palm land to be held on trust for children with income to supplement maintenance, RW entitled to 30% of PH's EPF, custody to RW, joint (50/50) responsibility for tertiary education costs, and monthly maintenance RM3,000 payable by PH for wife and children until completion of tertiary education; insurance premium for children c…
26 Dec 2023

PEMPETISYEN THAM KOK KIN TEH LING LING

Citation

AA-33-338-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-33-338-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The RM100,000 EPF withdrawal was more likely used to reduce/redeem the housing loan for the Taman Tangling Indah House thereby constituting a matrimonial contribution; applying s.76 LRA the court apportioned Taman Tangling Indah House 40% Petitioner, 40% Respondent, 20% held in trust for the child; Desa Rishah Indah acquired during marriage to be split 50% Petitioner and 50% held in trust for the child; maintenance fixed at RM1,000 monthly for Respondent and RM2,000 monthly for the child; Respondent to reimburse Petitioner 40% net value of Taman Tangling Indah within 12 months or property to…
24 Nov 2020

Sukumar Kokila (Paspot India: N3984634) LAIN-LAIN Muthuraja a/l Suppiah (No. K/P: 770611-08-6837) ...Pempetisyen

Citation

JA-33-211-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-33-211-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Spousal maintenance was refused because the respondent, being educated and capable of employment, failed to mitigate her position; child maintenance was increased to RM1,000 per month payable by the petitioner until the child reaches 18; respondent awarded a RM25,000 share of the pre-marital property in recognition of non-financial contributions and cohabitation; jewellery claim dismissed for lack of evidence.
30 Sept 2020

J J

Citation

AA-33-124-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-33-124-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Respondent disobeyed the Access Order on 24-25 December 2019; although procedural defects existed (no sealed copy served, no formal penal notice indorsed, show-cause formality), those defects did not prejudice the Respondent given his knowledge of the order and contemporaneous communications, and the Court lawfully dispensed with service and indorsement; therefore committal order was proper and Respondent was sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment.