案情 ：
- 双方举行传统婚礼，但是没有注册。
- “结婚”后，男方和女方以夫妻名誉住在一起，并生下了两个小孩。
- 几年后，女方带着两个小孩离开了男方，安定在娘家。
- 孩子由女方和女方妈妈照顾。
- 近日，男方一直恐吓和羞辱女方和威胁女方他会抢走小孩。
- 女方害怕小孩被抢走，担心在男方的家，男方做生意，忽略小孩的教育和成长。
- 女方入禀法庭申请小孩的抚养权和监护权。
法庭判 ：
- 由于没有注册结婚，孩子是属于私生子。但是根据1976年的法律改革（结婚与离婚法）第75(2)条文，由于双方在进行华人传统婚礼的时候，相信此传统仪式为合法的婚姻注册，法庭有权利承认他们的小孩为合法小孩。
- 根据1976年的法律改革（结婚与离婚法）第88(3)条文，法律的假设原则是让7岁以下的小孩与母亲在一起。但是在使用这个假设原则时，法庭会考量案情，法庭也会考量不干扰目前小孩的生活情况。
- 目前小孩是7岁以下，自从小孩出生后，小孩一直都很亲向女方。
- 法庭以孩子的福利为第一的考量因素。
- 法庭考量如果抚养权归男方，小孩子可能面对情绪上的压力，因为小孩是女方抚养长大，目前还是是跟女方一起生活。
- 因此，抚养权和监护权归女方。男方可以随时探望小孩 （附加双方同意的条件）。
By an originating summons, the plaintiff applied for the guardianship and control of her two infant children. The plaintiff’s counsel admitted that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant on 28 April 1988 was performed in accordance with Chinese custom and was thus not according to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (‘the 1976 Act’) which rendered the marriage void. After the wedding, both the plaintiff and the defendant had lived together as husband and wife and the two children were born and raised in their matrimonial home before they separated. The plaintiff’s counsel contended that by virtue of s 75(2) of the 1976 Act, the court could deem a child born of a void marriage to be legitimate if at the time the marriage was solmnized, both or one of the parties thereto believed the marriage to be valid.
Held, allowing the application:
(1) By virtue of Section 24(d) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and after considering the facts of the case, the court was of the opinion that the plaintiff should be appointed the guardian of the two infant children.
(2) Following Section 75(2) of the 1976 Act, the court could deem the plaintiff’s children as legitimate due to the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant believed at the time of their customary Chinese wedding that their marriage was valid. Further according to Section 88(3) and 91 the guardianship of children below the age of seven years who have been deemed legitimate under s 75 should be given to the mother.
Per curiam: It is clear that Parliament did not intend the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 to apply to illegitimate children without any direct reference about them being made in that Act.
Mahabir Prasad v Mahabir Prasad [1982] 1 MLJ 189:
“We are also aware of the damage done to emotional development of children if they are suddenly removed from a known, secure, supporting set of relationship, and thrust among strangers even if they be some blood relationship with one or more of the strangers. In some cases this may be explored by calling expert evidence in others, the ordinary experience of the Courts is relied upon. But this does not mean that the status quo must always be preserved. It merely means that we must anxiously consider the evidence before the Court and determine how best to promote the interest and welfare of the children. After having done that we are of the opinion that it cannot be but for the children’s interests and welfare that they be returned to their mother.”
Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976
75.Legitimacy where nullity decree made
(1) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage, any child who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled shall be deemed to be their legitimate child.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the child of a void marriage shall be treated as the legitimate child of his parent if, at the time of the solemnization of the marriage, both or either of the parties reasonably believed that the marriage was valid.
88.Power for court to make order for custody
(3) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is for the good of a child below the age of seven years to be with his or her mother but in deciding whether that presumption applies to the facts of any particular case, the court shall have regard to the undesirability of disturbing the life of a child by changes of custody.
Source: Khor Liang Keow v. Tee Ming Kook [1995] 4 MLJ 629. HC Taiping. Zulkefli PK.
**我们有处理离婚程序(双方面同意、无争议单方面、有争议单方面的申请离婚)。全西马案件皆有处理。你可以聘用我们当你的代表律师 谢谢。**
==============================
*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务，您可以联系我们。
*如果您需要法律咨询(付费)，您可以联系我们。
*我们的律师楼拥有超过15年的执业经验。我们处理民事纠纷 (打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆都处理。
*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as commercial disputes, civil litigation, debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.
*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。
*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekong.com
*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekongklg.com
*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice
*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice
*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage
*加入我们的网络论坛: www.queco.org
*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼
#Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #divorce lawyer #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师 #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #民事诉讼律师 #打官司的律师 #打离婚案的律师 #离婚律师
#7岁以下 #七岁以下 #华人传统结婚仪式 #相信是合法结婚注册 #以为是合法结婚注册 #相信是合法注册 #以为是合法注册 #抚养权归妈妈 #监护权归妈妈
