Bigamist who deceived wife, JPN, court loses family home in divorce ruling
Published on: Wednesday, June 05, 2024
By:
FMT, V Anbalagan
The High Court ordered a 60-year-old businessman to transfer to his 54-year-old homemaker wife their matrimonial home, after granting the couple a divorce after 28 years of marriage.
Kuala Lumpur: A businessman, who committed bigamy with a Thai woman and was branded “fraudulent” by a judge, was ordered to hand over to his wife of 28 years their matrimonial home after they were divorced in the High Court.
Justice Evrol Mariette Peters also ordered that the 60-year-old husband, identified only as DAY, pay his ex-wife, SAY, spousal maintenance of RM2,500 per month, a sum which the judge said “barely scratched the surface of basic sustenance”.
ADVERTISEMENT
The husband was also ordered to pay his 54-year-old wife RM90,000 as arrears in maintenance, covering the maximum period of three years permitted under the law.
In a 43-page judgment issued on Friday, Peters found that the husband had “committed fraud on several levels”.
“He first engaged in a bigamous customary marriage with (RAY) in 2010, a fact both (the husband) and (RAY) never disputed.
“This act alone constituted deception and dishonesty, bordering on criminal behaviour, as stipulated in Section 7 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act,” the judge said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Two years later the husband proceeded to register his “marriage” to RAY based on his “fraudulent claim” that he had divorced his wife.
To do so, he relied on a letter issued by JPN dated Nov 29, 2011, stating that the divorce had been granted eight days earlier.
ADVERTISEMENT
‘It was later discovered that (he) had used a divorce order that belonged to another couple, thereby defrauding not only the respondent, but the Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) as well,” the judge said.
‘Egregious and fraudulent’
Peters described the husband’s actions as “egregious”.
“(They) not only constituted a grave deception perpetrated against JPN, but also attracted the provisions of Sections 5 and 7 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, as well as Section 494 of the Penal Code, which deals with the offence of bigamy,” she said.
In 2017, the husband sought to convince his wife that their marriage had been dissolved in 2011 by producing yet another letter from JPN dated July 20, 2017.
Following that, the wife vacated their matrimonial home, claiming he had forced her out. However, her subsequent inquiries with JPN revealed that they had not been divorced as claimed.
Peters also found that the husband had “knowingly” served documents in the divorce proceedings on the wife at their matrimonial home, despite being aware that she no longer resided there.
“This was yet another attempt to deceive (her) and evade his responsibilities as a husband.
“Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it was evident that the (husband’s) conduct was indeed fraudulent. He had perpetrated fraud not only against the (wife) but also against JPN and the court,” the judge said.
‘Blasé attitude’
Peters said that, during cross-examination, the husband admitted to refusing to maintain his wife from the time she left the matrimonial home.
“This blasé attitude was indicative that he was aware of the responsibilities he had evaded but remained impervious and unruffled by his conduct,” the judgment read.
In an oral ruling delivered in March, Peters granted the couple a divorce, ordering that the decree nisi be made absolute immediately, and making orders for the transfer of the matrimonial home and maintenance.
The judge, however, dismissed the wife’s claim for damages against the mistress. She said the wife had been aware of the husband’s adultery since 2009, but only named RAY as a party in divorce proceedings 12 years later.
“This prolonged delay in action, despite knowledge of the adultery, suggests a tacit acceptance or tolerance of the situation,” she said.
Peters ordered that the husband pay the wife RM40,000 in costs.
She, however, rejected RAY’s application for costs against the wife.
“(RAY) was less than forthcoming with the truth. Her testimony was inconsistent, self-serving, illogical, and evasive,” the judge said in her ruling.
The couple married in 1989.
While the husband embarked on various entrepreneurial endeavours, including in the culinary industry and the scrap iron trade, the wife dedicated her life to homemaking and raised their three children.
Meanwhile, the husband began his adulterous relationship sometime in 2007 or 2008 with RAY, through whom he had two children.
After leaving the matrimonial home in 2017, the wife initially resided with one of their sons until last year, after which she relocated to live with her sister, whose son had contracted cancer.
“During oral submissions of the parties, the court was informed of the son’s demise,” Peters noted in her judgment.
‘Shifting the blame’
The judge had contrasting opinions of the couple’s testimony in court.
“(The husband) resorted to baseless allegations in an attempt to shift blame onto the (wife) for the breakdown of the marriage, as he was unable to cite his own adultery as grounds for divorce.
“After 28 years of marriage, (he) callously discarded her and even endeavoured to extricate himself from the marriage deceitfully to evade any form of financial obligation to her,” she said.
On the other hand, Peters found the wife to be “forthright” and “consistent” throughout her testimony.
“Her answers were direct and free of contradictions, which bolstered the credibility of her statements.”
Both husband and wife have filed appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express’s Telegram channel.
Daily Express Malaysia
.jpg)
.jpg)
