BRIEF FACTS:

• This was a lawsuit by the Petitioner (Wife), 72, seeking judicial separation from the Respondent (Husband), 74, and spousal maintenance, division of matrimonial assets, and damages from the Co-Respondent for alleged adultery between the Co-Respondent and the Husband.
  
  
• The Wife and the Husband had gotten married in October 1977 and they have 6 children together.
  
  
• In September 2022, the Wife claimed that the Husband had confessed to an adulterous relationship with the Co-Respondent who was 48 years old at the time of the trial. This is what led the Wife to seek judicial separation.
  
  
• During the course of the trial, the Husband and Co-Respondent had acknowledged the extent of their relationship but denied that it had become sexual.
  
  
• The Co-Respondent and Husband had met in 2021 where the Husband had relocated to Kampar to establish a farm. He met the Co-Respondent at a durian workshop.
  
  
• The Wife had highlighted that it was early 2021 in which the Husband and her had last had sexual relations and their marital dynamic had changed.
  
  
• There were a series of emails exchanged between the Husband and Co-Respondent as well as between the Husband and a personnel from an In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) Clinic.
  
  
• The emails to the clinic were focused around oocyte freezing (egg preservation), a procedure commonly associated with family planning and fertility preservation.
  
  
• In the emails, the Co-Respondent often referred to the Husband as her ‘partner’ and did not dispute the staff at the clinic when they referred to the Husband as her ‘husband’.

DECISION BY THE HIGH COURT (HC)

• The Judge awarded the Wife RM200,000 to be paid by the Co-Respondent and a further RM50,000 for legal fees to also be paid by the Co-Respondent.
  
  
• In coming to this decision, the Judge took into account the deep, emotional and historical significance of the Wife and Husband’ s 56 year relationship, and their 47 year marriage.
  
  
• The HC stated that the damages awarded were not to punish the Co-Respondent, but to compensate the Petitioner instead.
  
  
• The Judge further explained that damages were awarded for emotional and psychological distress, for loss of companionship and affection, for damage of reputation and for accountability as well as economic impact.
  
  
• The Judge observed that the Co-Respondent testified in a cavalier manner and was well aware of the marital and family status of the Husband. However, in Court, everything was denied; and when it was not, she provided narratives that were an absolute farce and affront to common sense.
  
  
• The HC further went on to say that the actions by the Co-Respondent demonstrated a blatant disregard for the Wife’s feelings, her legal rights and stability of the family unit as a whole.
  
  
• Her actions and efforts to conceive a child with the Husband though IVF clearly demonstrated her intention to establish a permanent and unbreakable connection with him, as well as attempting to oust the Wife from his life.
  
  
• This was not an isolated act of infidelity but a sustained pattern of behaviour that revealed a lack of empathy and respect for the consequences of her actions on others.
  
  
• The Husband was ordered to pay a lump sum payment of RM205,000.00 as spousal maintenance.
  
  
• The Court also ordered the Matrimonial Assets amounting to about RM47million to be divided equally between Husband and Wife.