Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
With regards to the contributions that the wife has done to the matrimonial home, the court
decided that she be given RM60,000, which was about 1/3 of the full purchase price of
RM191,000.
Koay Cheng Eng v Linda Herawati Santoso [2008] 4 MLJ 863, CA
Facts:
The petitioner (husband), a Malaysian and Respondent, an Indonesian were married in UK in
1980. After 6 years of marriage, the husband petitioned for divorce. While assessing the
amount of maintenance, the court will take into account the amount of maintenance the
husband should pay to the wife depending on the means and needs of the parties, taking into
account the standard of living of the parties which they enjoyed during the marriage.
In this case, the Husband contended that there was no proof that the wife has substantially
improved or contributed in any way whatsoever to substantial improvement of the property
during the marriage as provided under S.76 (5). The wife on the other hand gave evidence
that her salary was used towards the upkeep of the household as well as to buy groceries. It
was held that the wifes contribution of her salary towards upkeep of the household and to
buy groceries justified a share in the matrimonial home even though she had not contributed
financially to the property.
Held:
In deciding the amount of maintenance that should be paid by the husband, the court regarded
the duration of the marriage, whether there were any children of the marriage, the age of the
parties, whether the husband had financially supported the wife during of their marriage, the
parties earning capabilities and whether the divorce would have affected the husbands
position financially.
The court ordered the property to be regarded as matrimonial property and the wife was
awarded one-half of the net value of the said property.
Facts:
In this case, the facts clearly indicated that that the respondent never lived with the appellant
and the two children in the Kemensah property. As such, the Judge concluded that the
Kemensah property was not a matrimonial home of the respondent and the appellant.
However, Kemensah property was considered as matrimonial asset since it was an asset
acquired during the marriage of the parties.
The respondent claimed that the Kemensah property was acquired by his sole effort thus the
relevant provision that is applicable would be s.76(3) and not s.76(1) of the LRA (s.76(1) of
the LRA covers the division of matrimonial assets acquired by the joint efforts of both
parties).
Held:
It was held that there was no dispute as to the maintenance of the children as the two
children of the marriage are now above 18 years of age, being 22 years and 19 years old
respectively and are no longer minor children. Hence, since s.76 (4)(b) of the LRA would
not be relevant here, the court only has to consider s 76(4)(a) in dividing the
matrimonial assets.
With regards to the division of matrimonial property, the Judge decided that a just division of
the Kemensah property, ie 65% of it, to be given to the respondent because he had
contributed to nearly all of the purchase price of the property. The appellant did look
after the home and care for the family since she was a full time housewife and she was then
being awarded 35% of the Kemensah property for whatever she had contributed to the
welfare of her family, by looking after the home or caring for the family.
This division of the Kemensah property is consistent with the principle stated in s 76(4) of the
LRA which provides that 'in any case the party by whose effort the assets were acquired shall
receive a greater proportion'.
Lim Bee Cheng v Christopher Lee Joo Peng [1997] 4 MLJ 35; [1996] 2 CLJ 697, HC
Facts:
In this case, the respondent husband bought the house and put the petitioner wife's name as a
co-owner.
Held:
Strictly in accordance with the requirements under s.76(4), it would follow that the husband
should receive a greater proportion of the share or proceeds of the sale.
In deciding based on the facts and circumstances of the current case, the court holds that the
petitioner's share of the proceeds be limited to no more than one-third undivided share of
the said property or of the proceeds of sale.
However, further considering the Petitioners attempt in saving the property from
auctioners hammer, the said property was to be divided between respondent and
appellant equally.