lOMoARcPSD|4330718

Ancillary Claims

Civil Family Law (Universiti Teknologi MARA)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

Ancillary claims
1) Maintenance of wife and children
Maintenance of a wife during marriage (Married Women and Children (Maintenance) Act
1950 (MWCMA)):
- Sec. 3: The court may only order a man to pay maintenance to his wife and not to
order a wife to pay maintenance to her husband even if the husband is unable to earn
a livelihood due to mental or physical injury.
- Sec. 13: MWCMA is not applicable to Muslims.
Extent of the obligation to maintain during marriage:
- Sec. 5(1): If the wife lives separately from the husband with reasonable refusal to do
so, the court may make or enforce the order for maintenance although the husband
made it a condition that the wife lives with him and the wife fails to do so.
- Ranjit Singh v Jaswant Kaur: The husband and wife lived separately for 9 years.
The wife tried hard to reconcile the marriage until she gave up and when she
filed a petition for maintenance, the husband sought the wife back. Held: The
husband is not genuine because when the wife attempted reconciliation, the
husband did nothing. Thus, the application for maintenance was allowed as

- Sec. 5(2): No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband, if:
- She is living in adultery, or
- Rajalachmi v Sinniah: T
a single act of adultery.
- Without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband

- Sec. 3(1): In the assessment of maintenance, the husband is liable to pay maintenance
to his wife according to the means and needs of the parties.
- The means and needs of the parties is a question of fact.
- The court may reduce or increase the amount of maintenance, or rescind the
maintenance order depending on changes in

- Thevathasan v Thevathasan: The husband appealed against the decision of the

magistrate court which awarded $450 as monthly maintenance. Held: In
considering her potential earning capacity, before the marriage, the wife was
working as a teacher for a period of 2 years and earning a monthly salary of
$160. The wife ought to go out and work in her own interest as she is still young
and has no children, and the fact that she was partly to blame for the breakup
of the marriage was an additional reason for taking her potential earning
capacity into account. The court subsequently ordered the amount of the
maintenance to be reduced to $300 monthly.

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

- Sec. 3(3): The maintenance order shall be payable from the

neglect or refusal to maintain or from such later date as may be specified in the order.
- Amrick Lall v Sombaiavati: The court should not order payments of arrears for
a period exceeding one year.
- However, in Lee Yu Lan v Lim Thain Chye: Any arrears of maintenance may be
claimed from the date of the first incident of neglect or refusal, be it ten or
fifteen years.

- Sec. 4: Failure of the husband to pay maintenance may cause the husband to be
penalized, either by being ordered to pay an additional outstanding sum of
maintenance or imprisoned for a term which may extend to one month for each

- Sec. 6: The court may vary or rescind the maintenance order upon the application of
the husband or the wife, if it is satisfied that there are changes in t
circumstances.
- Lee Swee Peng v Koon Kum Keng: The husband was ordered to pay to the wife
$50 monthly for the maintenance of their child. He applied to the court to
rescind or vary the very same order. His sole ground was that he was unable
to pay $50. The court varied the order after noting that the husband was
drawing a salary of only $262 a month, was married and had to support an old
mother of 61 years. His monthly expenditure amounted to $258.20, causing
him to exercise a strict economy in his expenditure to meet the maintenance
of the child.
Maintenance of a wife after divorce (LRA)
- Sec. 77(1): The husband may be ordered to pay maintenance to the wife or ex-wife
where matrimonial proceedings are pending; after the court granted the order of
divorce or judicial separation, or where a wife presumed dead was found to be alive.
- Sec. 77(2): The court may order a woman to pay maintenance to her husband or ex-
husband where he is unable to earn a livelihood due to mental or physical injury, or
ill-health.

- Sec. 78: In the assessment of maintenance, the husband is liable to pay for the
maintenance of his spouse or ex-spouse according to:
- The means and needs of the parties;
- Koay Cheng Eng v Linda Herawati Santoso: In the assessment of maintenance,
the court shall have regard to the duration of marriage, the age of the parties,
whether there were any children of the marriage, whether the husband
had financially supported the wife during the duration of their marriage, the
parties earning capabilities, the standard of living the parties enjoyed during
the marriage and whether the divorce would affect
position.

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

- Chaw Anui v Tan Kim Chai: The issue of fair and reasonable maintenance is a
question of fact.

- The degree of responsibility of each party to the breakdown of the marriage

- Yap Kim Swee v Leong Huang Yin: The wife was not entitled to maintenance as
the divorce was granted based on her adultery.
Duration of orders of maintenance after divorce (LRA)
- Sec. 81: An order for maintenance shall expire:
- If the maintenance was unsecured, on the death of the husband or the wife,
whichever is earlier,
- If the maintenance was secured, on the death of the spouse, in whose favour
it was made.

- Sec. 82(1): The right of maintenance ceases upon remarriage or adultery.

- Sec. 82(2): The right of a divorced person to receive maintenance under agreement
ceases upon remarriage or adultery unless the agreement provides otherwise.

- Sec. 80: A lump sum payment of maintenance will cause a wife to be estopped from
claiming ongoing maintenance, subject to
- Lump sum payment originated from the Upon the end
of a marriage, there is no ongoing obligation to maintain a wife. It will be
ordered by the court upon application and must be consented by parties.
(Leow Kooi Wah v Ng Kok Seng Philip)
- However, a lump sum payment is only enforceable upon a husband who has a
good financial standing.
- Watchel v Watchel The court will not order a lump sum payment if it

- Sec. 83: The court may vary or rescind order of maintenance.

- Anna Tay Siew Hong v Joseph Ng Tiong Yong: The respondent filed an
application for a rescission of the maintenance order as he claimed that he was
60 years old, suffering from several ailments, had no permanent work and was
dependent on his second wife for financial support. Held: The application was
granted as the court was satisfied that there had been a material change in the
circumstances of both the respondent and the petitioner.
- There must exist extreme hardship to the existing order, otherwise
such claim will be dismissed.

- Sec. 86(3): No amount owing as maintenance shall be recoverable in any suit if it has
not been paid for more than 3 years before the institution of the suit.

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

Effect of conversion to Islam on maintenance of a divorced wife (LRA)

- Sec. 51(2): The court upon dissolving the marriage may make provision for the wife or
husband, and for the support, care and custody of the children of marriage may attach
conditions to the decree of the dissolution as it thinks fit.
- Tan Sung Mooi v Too Miew Kim: Sec. 51(2) was intended to give protection to the non-
Muslim spouse and the children of the marriage. Therefore, the court has the
jurisdiction to hear the ancillary claims made by the non-Muslim spouse against the
convert spouse.
- Where the convert spouse was a non-Muslim at the time of the marriage, the
provisions in regards to maintenance on the ground of conversion to Islam is
thus, applicable to the convert spouse by virtue of Sec. 3(3).

- The position on maintenance for the non-Muslim wife is that the converted husband
has to pay maintenance to his former wife until the right ceases under Sec. 81 and 82.
- The position is similar where it is the wife who has converted, the non-Muslim
husband may be ordered to pay maintenance until the right ceases.
- However, where the wife is the convert spouse, and the husband is unable to
earn a living as under Sec. 77(2), the provision would still apply to her whereby
she may be ordered to pay maintenance to the husband, despite it being
contrary to Syariah Law.
Maintenance of children (MWCMA and LRA)
- An application for childre MWCMA L‘A can be made at
any time, either during the marriage or matrimonial proceedings.

- Sec. 3(1), MWCMA: The court shall order any person to make a monthly allowance if
he neglect or refuses to maintain his wife or legitimate child.

- Sec. 92, LRA (general provision): It is children whether

they are in his custody or the custody of any other person.
- Sec. 93, LRA: The basic responsibility of maintenance of a child is on the father.
- Leow Kooi Wah v Ng Kok Seng Philip: Where the LRA pr

children if the court is satisfied that she is more capable of providing than the father.
- However, in Parkunan Achulingam v Kalaiyarasy Periasamy: The court maintained
only secondary

- Sec. 95, LRA: A expire if the child has attained the age of 18
or if the child is under physical and mental disability, on the ceasing of the disability.
- Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin: In appropriate cases, involuntary financial
dependence is considered a physical disability under Sec. 95. Thus, the court

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

them has obtained their first university degree.

- However, in Karunairajah Rasiah v Punithambigai Poniah: Where the appellant

in this case stopped payments of maintenance for his eldest child on the
ground that she had attained the age of 18, the court held: The phrase
“ should be given a literal meaning
and therefore, involuntary financial dependence cannot be brought within
the meaning of physical disability.

- Sec. 98, LRA: Recovery of arrears of maintenance is allowed up to a maximum of three

years (of unpaid maintenance) before the institution of the suit.
Effect of conversion to Islam on maintenance of children

- Tan Sung Mooi v Too Miew Kim: Conversion to Islam does not deprive the duty of a
convert father to maintain the children as provided under Sec. 51(2), LRA.

2) Division of matrimonial property (LRA)

Property acquired by joint effort and sole effort
- Sec. 76(1): The court shall have power, when granting the decree of divorce or judicial
separation to order the division of any joint effort matrimonial assets between the
parties.
- Ong Ah Mai v Ling Pooi Ming: The court has no jurisdiction to make orders pertaining
to the division of family property for the parties, if it is not made during the divorce
petition.
- Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin: Asset (property) refers to the matrimonial home
and everything which is put in by either spouse with the intention that their home and
chattels should be a continuing resource for the spouse and their children to be used
jointly and severally for the benefit of the family as a whole. It is irrelevant whether
the assets are acquired solely or by their joint efforts. Whilst the marriage subsists,
these assets are matrimonial assets.
- Wong Kim Fong v Teau Ah Kau: Shares are constituted as matrimonial assets and their
division depends on the extent of the contributions made by each party.

- Sec. 76(2): In exercising the power of division of joint effort property, the court shall
have regard to
- The extent of the contribution made by each party in money, property or work
towards acquiring of the assets;
- Usha Rani Subramaniam v Sivanes Rajaratnam: The court took into account
the efforts, and financial and physical contributions, of the wife in the setting
up of the clinic which enabled the husband to devote his energy to the running

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

of the clinic, and decided that she was entitled to one third of the total income
of the clinic.

- Any debts owing by either party which were contracted for their joint benefit;
- Lee Yu Lan v Lim Thian Chye: The court considered the debts incurred by the
husband in the course of acquiring the matrimonial home before dividing the
matrimonial home between him and his former wife.

- The needs of the minor children, if any, of the marriage,

- Chan Choy Ling v Chua Che Teck: The wife was awarded custody of their three
children. In preserving the needs of the minor children, the court awarded the
matrimonial home to the wife so that she and her three children have a house
to stay in instead of disposing the property for sale.

- And subject to those considerations, the court shall incline towards equality of
division.

- Sec. 76(3): The court shall have power, when granting the decree of divorce or judicial
separation to order the division of any sole effort matrimonial assets between
the parties.

- Section 76(4): In exercising the power of division of sole effort property, the court shall
have regard to
- The extent of the contributions made by the party who did not acquire the
assets to the welfare of the family by looking after the home or caring the
family;
- The needs of minor children, if any, of the marriage;
- And subject to those considerations, the court may divide the sole effort property in
proportion as the court thinks reasonable; but in any case, the party by whose effort
the assets were acquired shall receive a greater proportion.

- Lee Yu Lan v Lim Thian Chye: The court granted the wife RM60,000 which was 1/3 of
the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, as she had contributed to the
matrimonial home by caring and nurturing the children, and performed other general
duties attended by her as housewife.
- If the asset was acquired by the sole effort of one party, that party shall receive
a greater proportion, but the court will also look into the extent of the
contributions by the other party who did not acquire the assets to the welfare
of the family by looking after the home or caring for the family.

- Koay Cheng Eng v Linda Herawati Santoso The husband, a Malaysian and the wife,
an Indonesian, were married in the UK in 1980. Upon a petition for divorce, the court
purchase of
furniture, kitchenware, and groceries as a contribution towards acquiring that

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

property and held that the wife is entitled to ½ of the assets in Malaysia and UK. The
court also considered the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contributions as
matrimonial assets acquired during marriage due to the wife entering the marriage
with the intention to grow old with the husband and on his retirement, they would
both enjoy the benefit from the monies set aside in EPF contributions. Thus, the
breakdown of the marriage should not entitle the husband to solely benefit from the
EPF. The court held that the wife was entitled to half of the amount remaining in the
EPF that such monies should be
paid out to the wife when the same is payable to the husband.

- Lim Kuen Kuen v Hiew Kim Fook & Anor: Both, the EPF and gratuity payments (any
payments arising from a benefit) are matrimonial assets thus subjected to distribution.
Property owned before marriage

- Sec. 76(5): Property owned before marriage by one party, but substantially improved
by the other party or their joint effort during the marriage may be considered as
assets acquired during marriage.
- Shirley Koo v Kenneth Mok Kong Chua: T
amounted to
substantial improvement to a semi-detached terrace house because her efforts made
the value of the house increase.

- Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin: Buying furniture amounted to substantial
improvement of the property, as once the house value experiences an increase during
the period of marriage, the asset will fall within the ambit of the provision.
- However, in Shi Fang v Koh Pee Huat: The wife claimed a share in the matrimonial
home, which was acquired by the husband long before the marriage. Held: The only
way the wife could be entitled to the claim was to prove that the property had been
substantially improved by he T
effort of conceptualizing the renovation as de minimis (too remote) and thus, she was
not entitled to any share in the house.

3) Custody of children (Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (GIA) and LRA)

- Sec. 2(2)(a)(ii), GIA A person who has not reached 21 years old.
- Sec. 87, LRA and Sec. 2, Age of Majority Act 1971 A person who is under the
age of 18.
- Kanalingam v Kanagaraja: Where the definition of child L‘A and the Age
of Majority Act 1971 is preferable, a child is thus a person under the age of 18.
Application of custody

- Sec. 5(2), GIA and Sec. 88(1), LRA: Parents of the child are entitled to apply for custody.
- R. Saraswathy v R. Palakrishnan: An application for custody could be made under the
LRA even if there was no pending action for divorce.

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

Types of custody:
Sole custody order
- Only one party is given the care, control and custody of the child while the other party
is given the right to access.
- The parent to whom custody is granted has the right to determine the upbringing and
major decisions including the child s religion, education and healthcare.
Joint custody order
- Both parents continue to have an active parenting role despite the divorce
- Even though care and control is given to one parent, the other parent retains his or
her rights and responsibilities to be involved in the child s upbringing
- Karen Cheong Yuen Yee: The court not only ordered joint custody, but also joint care
and control of the children as the parties lived closely to one another and there was
no evidence of violence.
- Sivajothi Suppiah v Kunathasan Chelliah: The fact that the parties were in persistent
quarrels and disagreement was one of the important factors why joint custody was
not granted.
Factors taken into consideration in custody disputes:
Welfare of the child
- Sec. 11, GIA and Sec. 88(2), LRA: The welfare of the child is the paramount
consideration of the court in ascertaining the custody of the child.
- Re Satpal Singh, An Infant: The court in this case referred to:
- Re Thain: Welfare must be taken in its large context as meaning that the
welfare of the child as a whole must be considered. It is more than merely a
question of whether or not the child would be happier in one place compared
to another place, but his general well-being.
- Allen v Allen: Welfare in the English equivalent means physical and moral
welfare. Thus, mere adultery cannot cause a woman to be considered as an
unfit person and who should not have the care and control of a child.
- K. Shanta Kumari v Vijayan: Welfare means that the care, comfort, attention, well-
being and happiness of the child are matters that should be taken into consideration.

- Teh Eng Kim v Yew Peng Siong: The maintenance of a stable and secure home in which
the children can enjoy love and affection is the most important thing that should be
taken into consideration.
- Sivajothi Suppiah: The court granted custody, care and control of the eldest child to
wife, while the husband was granted reasonable access. The court considered that the
wife only worked 2 hours in the afternoon and would have more time to devote
herself to the care and needs of the child and that it would not be in the best interest
and welfare of the child, at his early and critical stage of life, to be brought up in an

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

environment that wo volatile

(unstable) character resulting from his suicide attempt.

- J v C The HOL ruled that the Guardianship of Infant Acts 1925 applies to disputes
not only between parents, but between parents and strangers, and strangers and
strangers. In this case, the care and control of the child was granted to the foster
parents instead medically proven that the
child had a stronger relationship with the foster parents and family, such that if the
child is returned to the natural parents, there is a slight (very little) success for the
child to adjust to the situation, thus causing it to affect

- Masam v Salina Saropa: A natural mother sought for the custody of her son from the
foster parents who had been taking care of him since he was 9 days old. In this case,
since the infant had lived with his foster parents for approximately two years and they
had cared for him with love and affection, the court ruled that custody should remain
with them. Taking him away from his foster parents may cause him to develop a
permanent emotional scar.
Wishes of the parents
- Sec. 11, GIA and Sec. 88(2)(a), LRA: The wishes of the parents, subject to the welfare
of the child, is to be taken into consideration by the court.
- Mahabir Prasad v Mahabir Prasad: The mere desire of a parent to have his children is
secondary to the consideration of the welfare of the children, and can only be effective
if it coincides with their welfare.
Wishes of the child
- Sec. 88(2)(b), LRA: The court, subject to the welfare of the child, shall have regard to
the wishes of the child, where he is of an age to express independent opinion.
- Chang Ah May v A Francis Teh Thian Sar: The child preferred to stay with her father
for the sole reason that she hated to be left in the care of a babysitter when her
mother worked. However, where her maternal grandparents were willing to care for
her in the custody of the child was given to the mother as the
court found that she and her relatives could provide better care than the father and
his relatives, and that there was a possibility that the wishes of the child were
expressed under influence.
- B Ravandran Balan v Maliga Mani Pillai: The court rejected the view of the child where
there was a probability that he was influenced by material gains promised to be given
to or already given by the father.

- Whether a child can be considered of an age to express independent opinion depends

on the opinion of the court in a particular case.
- Manickam v Intherahnee: A child of 8 years could not reasonably be expected to
express any independent opinion on his preferences.

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

- Mahabir Prasad v Mahabir Prasad: Children aged 7 ½ and 8 ½ years should be given
the opportunity to express their wishes.
A child under seven years old
- Sec. 88(3), LRA: There exists a rebuttable presumption that it is good for a child under
7 years to be with his or her mother.
- L v S: Strong grounds are needed to rebut the presumption.
- Gan Koo Kea v Gan Shiow Lih: The husband applied for the guardianship, custody, care
and control of the children. T
with the wife ever since the separation, the tender age of the children (both below
the age of 7 years), the admission of the husband beating his children using clothes
ren after the
separation. There was nothing in the facts to show that the wife was unable to provide
for the children with an adequate home environment and nothing against the wife in
respect of her ability to shower love and affection on the children. Thus, the
rebuttable presumption was invoked by the court in that it is good for the children
to be with their mother, who has always been with them since the separation of the
parties and it was undesirable to disturb the life of the children by a change in custody.
- However, the presumption was rebutted in Re T (A Minor): The court found that it was
good for the 4 year old daughter to be in the custody of her father due to her mother
suffering from severe mental depression.
- Tay Chuen Siang v Wang Chiao-Wen: Children below the age of 7 that had been
brought up in a stable and caring environment should not be disturbed by a change in
custody. The presumption was rebutted where there was evidence of irrational
behaviour on the part of the mother.
Existence of more than one child in a marriage
- Sec. 88(4), LRA: Where there are two or more children of a marriage, the court shall
not be bound to place all the children in the custody of the same person but shall
consider the welfare of each independently.
- Tan Chong Pay v Tan Swee Boon: The court decided that a boy, who was above 7 years
should stay with the father as that was his wish while the younger brother, who was
4 years old should be given to the mother, taking into account the presumption under
Sec. 88(3).
- Chong Siew Lee v Lau Mun Chong: Taking into account the interests of the child, the
court granted custody of the elder child to remain with the mother while the younger
child was given to the father.
Opinion of the Welfare Officer
- Sec. 100, LRA: The court, whenever it is practicable, shall take the advice of the welfare
officer when dealing with custody matters. However, the court shall not be bound to
follow such advice.

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4330718

Conditions to order of custody

- Sec. 89(1), LRA: The court in making an order of custody, as it thinks fit, may attach
conditions as listed in Sec. 89(2)(a) (e).
Variation order
- Sec. 96, LRA: The court has the power to vary an order for custody.
- Sivajothi Suppiah v Kunathasan Chelliah: An 11 year old daughter was ordered to stay
with the father after he applied for a variation order to the order made before which
granted custody to the mother.
Duration of custody
- Section 95, LRA: The period of custody of a child ceases when the child attains the age
of 18.

Downloaded by narihays imhays (narihaysimhays@gmail.com)