2respondent has behaved in such a way that the

This preview shows page 16 - 19 out of 39 pages.

2)Respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Cases: Mahon v Mahon [1971] 2 MLJ 266 Ng Wee Whye v Wong Sook Heng [1978] 1 MLJ 100 Melvin Lee Campbell v Amy Anak Edward Sumek [1988] 2 MLJ 338 Tan Guan Hock v Khor Chai Heah [1990] 1 MLJ 422 Long Yan Fei v Pauls Baya [1999] 2 CLJ 860 Ang Geck Choo v Wong Tiew Yong [1997] 3 MLJ 467 Jayasakhthy Kumaranayagam v Kandiah Chandrakumaran [1996] 5 MLJ 612 Re Praset Wongphattarakul and Poh Bee Bee [1996] 3 AMR 3434 Cases : Bowman v Bowman [1949] 2 ALL ER 127; [1949] P 535 Fay v Fay [1982] AC 835 V v V [1966] 3 ALL ER 493 Hillier v Hillier and Latham [1958] P 186 C v C [1980] Fam 23 Brewer v Brewer [1964] 1 WLR 403 Recommended Reading 5. Muhammad Altaf Hussain Ahangar, Current Law Journal, (1995) 3 CLJ lxxvii-lxxxvii. 6. Prof Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim. Malayan Law News, March 1993. 7. Najibah Mohd Zin, [2007] Law Review 63-73. ISSN 1985-0891 8. Mohd Zin, Najibah. (2011) Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6 (11). pp. 66-
3)Respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition. 4)The parties to the marriage have lived a part for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Issues related to divorce 1) Procedure of divorce – s. 50, s.48, s. 49, s. 54(2), s. 55, s. 57(2), s. 106, s. 54(2). 2) Reconciliation – s. 55, s. 57(2) & s. 106 3) Agreement made between the 73. ISSN 1991-8178, Indexed in ISI/Scopus) Cases: Eswari Visuralingam v Govt of Malaysia [1990] 1 MLJ 86 Pedley v Majlis Ugama Islam Pulau Pinang & Anor [1990] 2 MLJ 307. Ng Siew Pian v Abd Wahid b. Abu Hassan, Kadi Daerah Bukit Mertajam & Satu Lagi [1993] 1 CLJ 391. Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr. Jeyaganesh C Mogarajah (2004) 3 CLJ 516 Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray & Other Appeals (2008) 2 CLJ 1 Cases: Yip Fook Tai v Manjit Singh s/o Mohar Singh @ Mohammad Iskandar Manjit bin Abdullah [1990] 2 CLJ 605 Letchumy v Ramadasan [1984] 1 MLJ 143 Tan Sung Mooi v Too Miew Kim [1994] 3 MLJ 117 Koh Yian Geok v Zulkifli Tan b Abdullah [1995] 2 AMR 1525 Nur Aishah Suk bte. Abdullah @ Sukwinder Kaur a/p Sajhan Singh v Harjeet Singh [2000] 7 MLJ 547 Genga Devi Chelliah v Santanam Damodaram [2001] 2 CLJ 359 Chang Ah Mee v Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam, Majlis Ugama Islam Sabah & Ors (2003) 1 MLJ 526 Nedunchelian V Uthiradam v Nurshafiqah Mah Singai Annal & Ors (2005) 2 CLJ 306 Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr. Jeyaganesh C Mogarajah (2004) 3 CLJ 516 Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray & Other Appeals (2008) 2 CLJ 1
9 parties – s. 56 4) Decree Nisi & decree absolute – s. 61 5) Remarriage – s.62 6) Presumption of death –s 63 7) Judicial separation – s 64 , s. 65 7 s.66. Ancillary Orders on Divorce (i) Maintenance – of wife after divorce LRA ss.. 77 – 86 Cases : Tey Siew Choo @ Nur Aishah Tey binti Abdullah v Teo Eng Hua [1997] 3 AMR 2779. Yong Fuat Meng v Chin Yoon Kew [2008] 5 MLJ 226 Cases In Re Divorce Petitions Nos 18, 20 and 24 of 1983 [1984] 2 MLJ 158 Sivanesan v Shymala [1986] 1 MLJ 400 Re Goh Hoe Ling & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 137 Cases 54 (1) (a)-Adultery & Intolerability Goodrich v Goodrich [1971] 2 All E.R.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture