- 女方和男方在12.2013注册。这是一段父母指腹为婚的婚姻。注册前，男方和女方是从未见过面的。他们也只是在电子App 交流而已。
- 法官也说 (小编注：基于法庭的权限，这只是法官的意见，并不是属于约束性的判决)，任何男方给女方的金钱或是礼物都是自愿的，所以双方都不能跟对方索回。
- Wife(PW) and Husband (RH) were married on 11.12.2013. It was an arranged marriage made by family members of both parties. Before the marriage, PW and RH have never met in person and they merely communicated through the electronic media.
- PW and RH eventually met a few months before the marriage. It was agreed between PW and RH that they would only cohabit after going through the ceremonial marriage which unfortunately did not take place.
- PW filed a divorce petition against the RH for the marriage to be declared null and void on the ground of non-consummation.
- RH cross-petitioned for damages which includes special damages of RM14,236.00 spent during the marriage, the withdrawal of RH from acting as a guarantor in PW car hire-purchase agreement, the return of the handphone, the return of photographs taken of RH and PW and general damages for RM250,000.00 for emotional and mental anguish suffered by the RH during the marriage.
- On the hearing date, parties agreed for the marriage to be declared null and void due to non-consummation, which was granted by this court.
- It is very clear that the LRA was enacted to provide for marriages and divorces, maintenance for spouses, former spouses and children, the custody of children and for the division of the matrimonial property. Save and except for damages for adultery the LRA makes no mention of any other forms of damages such as the tortious claims on mental anguish made by the RH in this present case.
- The proper forum to litigate this claim by the RH is for the RH to proceed separately by way of a writ action as it would not be appropriate and or suitable to proceed with it under this petition.
- LRA had done so far is to allow specific claim for damages in the area of adultery under s.58 and s.59 of the LRA only and nothing else. The law as it stands appears to say that tort cases and divorce cases must be litigated separately.
- RH did not make any attempt to prove that the annulment would be unjust and that the PW is the guilty party who wilfuly refused to consummate the marriage and consequently therefore, due to the the PW’s conduct the RH is entitled to damages. In the premise the RH is not entitled to any damages. This court finds that whatever money or gifts given by the RH to the PW are purely on a voluntary basis and the parties have no claim against each other.
Source: Shobana a/p Perumal v Ganesh a/l Guna  MLJU 1108, Ipoh High Court
*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
*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。我们为无数的平民百姓免费解除了各类的法律困扰。
*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。
*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.
#马来西亚华人律师 #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #Klang Lawyer #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #KL Lawyer #懂华文的律师
#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼