(Family Law — Exemption Order Under Section 106 LRA)

Case: MLJU 3957 / [2024] MLRHU 2945

Counsel: Khoo Ai Theng  NZSK

Ng, Zainurul, Seke & Khoo (NZSK) achieved a significant family law victory in [2024] MLRHU 2945, where the Shah Alam High Court dismissed the Husband’s attempt to set aside an exemption order granted under section 106 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA 1976). This exemption allowed the Wife to proceed with a divorce petition without attending a conciliatory body, an increasingly common issue in Malaysian divorce proceedings involving harassment, domestic abuse, infidelity, or mental health concerns.

The Court upheld the exemption order after finding that the Wife had proven exceptional circumstances, including severe emotional distress, psychiatric treatment, and continuous harassment connected to the Husband’s extramarital affair. The third party involved had allegedly trespassed into the matrimonial home, issued threats, and repeatedly harassed the Wife and the children through calls and messages. The High Court accepted that forcing the Wife to undergo a reconciliation process would aggravate her fragile mental state and was entirely impractical.

The Court also found that the Husband’s conduct strongly supported the Wife’s claim. Despite being aware of the harassment, the Husband took no steps to protect the Wife or the children. He ignored her distress, failed to address the affair, and dismissed the ongoing threats as something she should “just block.” His lack of genuine effort to repair the marriage made reconciliation unrealistic. Evidence also showed that attempts at reconciliation had already been made by family members, but the Husband refused to cooperate.

Procedurally, the Husband’s application to set aside the exemption order was also fatally delayed. The High Court found that he had been properly served through substituted service, had personally received the divorce petition, and had even filed an Acknowledgment of Receipt indicating he agreed to a divorce decree. He later participated in the divorce proceedings by filing an affidavit opposing interim relief — all without objecting to the exemption order. The Court held that his three-month delay and subsequent change of position were tactical, aimed at delaying the divorce and avoiding interim maintenance obligations.

The High Court further held that substituted service was properly executed and could not be attacked collaterally at a later stage. The Court also rejected the Husband’s argument that the Wife’s affidavit was defective, confirming that it complied with Order 41 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Husband’s application with costs, affirming that the exemption order was regularly obtained and supported by strong evidence. This decision reinforces important legal principles in Malaysian family law — particularly the Court’s power to exempt parties from conciliatory body attendance where harassment, infidelity, threats, or mental health issues make reconciliation unsafe or impractical.

This victory adds to NZSK’s established track record in complex divorce litigation, family disputes involving mental health, and section 106 LRA applications, ensuring clients can proceed with divorce efficiently and without unnecessary procedural barriers.