- 如果对方遗弃你两年，你可以单方面申请离婚。
- 遗弃不是指实体搬离对方，而是实际情况上的遗弃。
- 在Hopes v Hopes (1949) P227， 法官说：”就算夫妇同住在一间房屋里，住着自己的房间，双方都没有履行夫妻的关系与责任，这样就好比双方不是住在一起。那就是法律上的“遗弃”。如果一方没有附上任何夫妻的责任，另一方在自己的房间照顾自己，这就是被一方遗弃。这就犹如一方已经遗弃另一方，自己到他的亲戚家生活的情况。”
- 在Bhanu Sekaramani v Nagamma (1991) 3 MLJ 34 的案件里，法庭判决：分居是基本证据证明婚姻已经破裂。但是申请离婚一方必须证明婚姻已经破裂，双方并不可能修复和好。
- 请阅读我们相关的链接：离婚案：证明婚姻无法挽留
- Desertion is based on the rejection by one party of all obligations of marriage (Perry v Perry (1952) 203).
- “Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things” per Lord Merrivale in Pulford v Pulford (1923) P18 at p.21.
- The factum of desertion can be established even if the parties are living under one roof. As said by Lord Denning L.J. (as he then was) at Hopes v Hopes (1949) P227 at p.235:
“The husband who shuts himself up in one or two rooms of his house, and ceases to have anything to do with his wife, is living separately and apart from her as effectively as if they were separated by the outer door of a flat. They may meet on stairs or in the passageway, but so they might if they each had separate flats in one building. If that separation is brought about by his fault, why is that no desertion? He has forsaken and abandoned his wife as effectively as if he has gone into lodgings.The converse is equally true. If the wife ceases to have anything to do with, or for, the husband and he is left to look after himself in his own rooms, why is that not at desertion? She has forsaken and abandoned him as effectively as if she had gone to live with her relatives.”
- As was said by Ormrod, J. In Pheasant v Pheasant (1972) Fam.203 at 207: “Separation is undoubtedly, the best evidence of breakdown, and the passing of time, the most reliable indication that it is irretrievable.”
- In Springfellow v Springfellow(1976) 2 All ER 219, it was held that desertion per se without more is not a good ground to assert that a marriage has irretrievably broke down.
- The relationship does not end so long as both of them bona fide recognised it as subsisting. What is required to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court is both a physical separation and a mental attitude on the part one or both of the spouses.
- In Bhanu Sekaramani v Nagamma (1991) 3 MLJ 34, the court held that the fact of separation is a prima facie evidence of a breakdown, but P has to prove that the breakdown is irretrievably. In other words, a constructive desertion does not constitute an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage.
==============================
*如果需要法律咨询或者聘请律师处理法律事务，您可以联系我们。
*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
*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。
*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，商业纠纷，打官司/法庭诉讼，追讨债务，遗产分配，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.
#马来西亚华人律师 #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #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 #民事诉讼律师
#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼