Fifth attempt to resume hearing

As mention in my previous post (titled "The answer"), my ex-wife had filed an application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya to declare that my previous marriage with her null and void. This was made on grounds that she had purportedly only recently became aware that her parents only got married 1 year 3 months after she was born (in other words she is claiming that she is an illegitimate child).

Subsequent to that, in June 2011 she filed an application at the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam to suspend all other proceedings between me and her at both the Syariah High Court in Shah Alam and the Syariah Lower Court in Shah Alam until her application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya is decided. Her argument is that should the case at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya is decided in her favour, all the other existing proceedings would be moot. If there was no marriage, hence there would be no matrimoial assets (harta sepencarian) claims, declaration of nusyuz etc. Furthermore, my ex-wife was of the view that the children would also be deemed to be illegitimate, and custody would go to her pursuant to Section 86 of the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003.

She also claims that her application for suspension of all case proceedings would purportedly "save the Court's time".

In my defence I pointed out that

1. My ex-wife's application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya was done in bad faith (mala fide) to deny me my rights to child custody;
2. My ex-wife had never raised the issue of her being an illegitimate child prior to this, and in fact had in several affidavits affirmed that our previous pernikahan was "sah dari segi hukum syarak";
3. My ex-wife only raised this issue in the Selangor Syariah Courts 9 months after raising the same in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts; and
4. There is no effect whatsoever to the child custody proceedings even if the Mahkamah Rendah Syairah Petaling Jaya were to declare that my previous marriage null and void. Pursuant to Sections 2 and 114 of the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003, the child's "nasab" or lineage would still be with me.

On 25 October 2011, the Honourable Judge decided that

1. My previous marriage if nullified would be deemed a "pernikahan fasid" and not "pernikahan bathil". A pernikahan would be deemed "fasid" if it was discovered that one of the "rukuns" or pillars was not adhered to AFTER the pernikahan took place, whereas a pernikahan would be deemed "bathil" if it was known at the time of the pernikahan that one of the "rukuns" was absent;
2. As the marriage was deemed "pernikahan fasid", hence Sections 2 and 114 of Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 would apply. Hence the childrens "nasab" would still be with me;
3. The child custody proceedings and all related proceedings shall proceed with immediate effect; and
4. The matrimonial assets case proceedings and other non-child custody related proceedings shall be suspended.

My ex-wife was seen very unhappy and devastated after the judgement was read. I trust she and her unsavoury legal advisor's focus now would be the battle at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya.

My focus now would be on the child custody hearing, which is scheduled to resume for the fifth time early next year.

I really wonder what will they think of next...

Inconsistency at its glory

What happened in court last week was shocking! My confidence level on the Syariah judicial system nose dived and I began to seriously doubt its ability to deliver justice.

Last week was the "tarikh keputusan" or decision date on my ex-wife's husband's application to extend his injunction against me, my mum and his 2nd ex-wife.

As mentioned in my previous post, my previous injunction against him was set aside on grounds that

1. my previous injunction against him was only valid for 30 days; and
2. he is not a party to my child custody proceedings

In our reply to his application for extension, we argued that

1. there are material inconsistencies as to the validity period of his injunction. One clause in the injunction states that it is valid until his child custody proceedings are concluded, whilst another clause in the same injunction states that it is valid unless the courts issue an order stating otherwise. So which clause is to be used? Further to that, the application for extension also puts to question the validity of the two inconsistent clauses.
2. my mum and I are not parties to the child custody proceedings.

However, in making his decision the Honourable Judge stated that

1. my ex-wife's husband's application to extend the injunction was merely a precautionary measure and does not cast doubt as to the validity period of the injunction. It is therefore valid until his child custody proceedings are concluded; and
2. it is not clear that my mum and I are not parties to his child custody proceedings.

Is the Honourable Judge saying that my mum and I are parties to his child custody proceedings??? Pardon my language but is it a joke?

First of all, why on earth would I want to claim custody over HIS children? Secondly, even if we wanted to, where does it say in the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 that my mum and I have rights to claim custody over his children? Finally, how is it that my mum and I are parties to his child custody proceedings when our names don't appear as parties in the case and no interveners have ever been filed. How is that NOT clear? How much clearer can it get?

How can the same judge make two contradictory decisions? How can justice be served if the courts are inconsistent with their decisions? All those hard earned monies spent on legal costs goes to nothing???

Hadhanah trial delayed again

Yesterday, my hadhanah or child custody trial at Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Shah Alam was supposed to resume after no less than 3 postponements since December 2010.

As expected, my ex-wife's lawyers (3 of them!) made a meal of the Honourable Judge's decision at Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya on 14 September 2011 to deny my Bantahan Awal.

After several rounds of exchanges between the lawyers from both sides, the Honourable Judge concluded that he will make a decision on the matter at the end of October 2011.

Yet another postponement...

Keputusan Bantahan Awal

Last week, 14 September 2011 was the "tarikh keputusan" for my preliminary objection or "Bantahan Awal" at Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya.

As previously mentioned, on 21 March 2011 my ex-wife filed an application at Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya to invalidate my previous marriage with her.

Her application is based on fact that she purportedly "suddenly became aware" that she is an illegitimate child, hence her father cannot be the wali for our marriage. Her ultimate aim is to prejudice my child custody and matrimonial asset claims.

I filed in my Bantahan Awal on 21 June 2011.

On 14 September 2011, the Honourable Judge rejected my Bantahan Awal on grounds that the issue put forth by my ex-wife is a serious one that has material consequences on the issue of lineage and inheritance. Therfore the matter should be tried. Both parties were ordered to complete their pleadings and to proceed with a full trial.

After the event, I learned that the case had attracted the interest of the press. Even the members of staff at the courts were following the case. Whilst walking out of the court, I noticed the presence of reporter(s) and a cameraman. My ex-wife's legal counsel alerted her, and as a result, she refused to step out from the court building for almost an hour. Her unsavoury advisor even tried to chase the cameraman away.

In the end, she came out with a newspaper covering her face. As the Malays say "tahu pun malu"!

The contempt

During a case mention 16 November 2010, my ex-wife put in an oral request before the Honourable Judge to be with the children for Hari Raya Aidil Adha. The Honourable Judge granted the request and ordered for the children to be surrendered to my ex-wife on 16 November 2010 at 3:30pm and to be returned on 17 November 2011 on or before 5:30pm.

To cut a long story short, after surrendering my children to her, my ex-wife refused to return them as ordered by the courts.

The courts subsequently issued an order for my ex-wife to return the children to me, to which she continued to totally disregarded.

On 16 December 2011, with the help of the police, the children were subsequently surrendered to me at 4:00am at IPD Shah Alam. Yes 4:00AM!

Whilst all this was happening, we put in an application to cite my ex-wife for contempt pursuant to Section 229(1) of the Enakmen Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syairah (Negeri Selangor) 2003.

The hearing for the case was initially set for 5 July 2011, but was subsequently postponed to 8 September 2011.

On 8 September 2011, we informed the Honourable Judge that we were ready to proceed with the hearing. In response, and to our surprise, the Honourable Judge referred to a recent Syariah Court of Appeal case in Negeri Sembilan, where it was decided that only the courts have the power to commence contempt proceedings pursuant to the equivalent of Section 229(1) of the Enakmen Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syairah (Negeri Selangor) 2003.

This has a direct impact on all ongoing contempt proceedings... including the one that I have just filed.

As the Syariah Court of Appeal case was relatively new, the Honourable Judge ordered that both lawyers are to study the case and present to the Honourable Judge on 25 October 2011 on whether the contempt proceedings can continue.

The supposed end of the injunction

On 10 January 2011 my ex-wife's husband applied for an ex-parte injunction to prevent me and my mum from going within 100 metres of him and his two children and to prevent his 2nd ex-wife from bringing his children to see me and my mum.

Part of the terms of the injunction is that it must be served to the respondents within 14 days.

The order was served to me and the guy's 2nd ex-wife within that 14 day period, but not to my mum.

In February 2011, the guy files in an application to extend the validity of the injunction order. We found this rather strange as the terms of the injunction states that it is valid until his child custody proceedings have been concluded. So which is which?

My mum subsequently filed in a preliminary objection on grounds that the order was not served to her within the 14 day period. I filed in an application to set aside the injunction on grounds that all the allegations made by the guy is all fabricated and I am not a party to his child custody proceedings (hence no kes induk).

We also filed our affidavits to challenge the guy's application to extend the validity of the order.

After about four (4) months of affidavits flying around, on 15 June 2011 the courts determined that it would make a decision on the extension of the injunction on 3 August 2011.

On 3 August 2011, the Honourable Judge was on emergency leave. The replacement judge was willing to read out the court's decision, but to our horror, he said that the case file cannot be found anywhere in the Honourable Judge's room.

So it was decided that the courts will instead read out the decision on 19 October 2011.

The lawyers are also ordered to give an oral summary on the respondents' application to set aside the injunction.

We shall see what happens on 19 October 2011.

The injunction story continues

In October 2010, I obtained an injunction from the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam preventing my ex-wife's husband from being with my children.

In response, in December 2010 my ex-wife's husband applied for an ex-parte injunction to prevent me and my mum from going within 100 metres of him and his two children and to prevent his 2nd ex-wife from bringing his children to see me and my mum. I just cannot understand the logic of his actions as it is obviously clear that he and his team of lawyers were overreacting (at best) and didn't put much thought into such actions.

Sadly, (being an ex-parte application) the injunction was granted on 10 January 2011.

Even worse, the injuction that I obtained in October 2010 was subsequently set aside in February 2011. To put it bluntly, I reckon it was something that my legal advisors may have overlooked. Pursuant to an Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Syariah, ex-parte injunctions are only valid for 30 days, unless granted otherwise by the courts. The injunction order was silent on the validity period, hence my ex-wife's husband's lawyers pounced on this ommision and got the injunction swiftly set aside. I was also made to understand that the injucntion was also set aside on technical grounds, i.e. the injunction was premised on my child custody proceedings and he is not a party to the said proceedings.

In February 2011, my mum, the 2nd ex-wife and I immediately filed an application to set aside my ex-wife's husband's injuction order. At the same time, he also filed in an application to extend the validity period of his injunction order. We were rather surprised by his action as the said injunction says that the it is valid up to

1. the date his child custody proceedings are concluded
2. the date another order is obtained to the contrary

The nonsensicle charade got bigger, messier and even more complicated...

The injunctions

As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, my ex-wife's boyfriend (now husband) is under investigation by the police for child sexual abuse (Section 377E Penal Code).

At one time my children complained that he had hit them in the past. It happaned when my then wife (when I was still married to her) took them out on dates with him. I was rather concerned but I needed proof.

My ex-wife and her boyfriend got married in May 2010.

After they got married, naturally my ex-wife took the children home (during visitations) to stay with her and her new husband. As expected, I was worried. My worry turned out to be a nightmare when my daughter complained that her step father let her see him naked.

My family and I were worried sick. I was faced with the situation where my ex-wife brings my children home to stay with a guy who is under investigation for child sexual abuse and he subsequently lets himself be seen naked by my daughter. Should I just keep quiet and hope for the best and that nothing will happen? Or shall I do something about it?

After lengthy discussions with my legal counsels, we then decided to obtain an injunction on grounds of safety for the children. On 14 October 2010, the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam granted the said injunction.

Natural a guy with such an unsavory character and with something to hide (well... loads actually) would be extremely illusive. The injunction was finally served on him sometime around 3rd November 2010.

I have absolutely no words to describe the events that followed. It was probably one of the most ridiculous short term brain-disengagaed knee-jerk rection one could have ever undertaken. Till today I am still in a state of shock!

About 4 days after being served with the injunction order, my ex-wife and her husband started to make video recordings of HIS two children (from his previous marriage with his 2nd ex-wife). In the videos, the eldest of the two (5 years old at that time) was seen guided by the guy asking the boy to say that

• my mum had molested the boy;
• the boy's mum (the guy's 2nd ex-wife), my mum and I were practicing black magic; and
• the boy's mum, my mum and I constantly taught him to say that the guy had molested him.

In another video, the youngest of the two (3 years old at that time) was filmed by my ex-wife, naked from waist down, with an erection and saying "nenek buat... nenek buat".

I wish I can display the videos here to show how blatantly obvious that the whole thing was doctored. The poor children were inconsistent with their answers and had to be blatantly guided to produce the (prejudicial) answers that my ex-wife and her husband wanted. Look at the timing too! How is it that these events were to "suddenly" surface out of the blue after the injunction was served on him? Come on lah! Who are you trying to kid here?

On 15 November 2010, the guy

1. used the videos in his application to set aside the injunction; and
2. lodged a police report against my mum.

Once again, we were hauled up and had to make several trips to IPD Shah Alam to have our statements taken.

It didn't stop there.

At the end of November 2010, my ex-wife did exactly the same thing... but this time on my two children. Her own flesh and blood!

My 6 year old son was interviewed on video (by my ex-wife) naked on bed and being asked to play with his private parts and describing how my mum purportedly touched his genetials.

My ex-wife swiftly brought my children and the video to a child psychiatrist. Being an experienced child psychiatrist, she immediately knew it was all fabricated and gave my ex-wife a good telling off.

Not satisfied with that, my ex-wife lodged a police report against my mum. That was the second time she did that against my mum, alleging the same offence. I was told that the police could see that it was all fabricated and was reluctant to open up an investigation paper. My ex-wife was obviously unhappy and proceeded to lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of the Police. The police had no choice but to reopen the case.

At the same time, the guy filed in another affidavit enclosing pictures and copies of the videos of my children and at the same time applied for an ex-parte injunction to

1. prohibit me and my mum from seeing his children; and
2. prohibit his 2nd ex-wife from bringing his children to see me and my mum

The injuction was on grounds that

1. my mum had purportedly assaulted him in public;
2. my mum had purportedly molested his children;
3. my mum and I had purportedly brain washed his children to despise him;
4. I had purportedly engaged in sexual activities with his 2nd ex-wife in front of his children; and
5. his 2nd ex-wife, my mum and I had practiced black magic

Sadly, and ridiculously, the injunction was granted in January 2011.

Proceed as planned

On 21 March 2011, my ex-wife filed an application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Daerah Petaling to declare my previous marriage with her null and void. She argued that this would have an impact on the child custody proceedings as Section 86 of Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 states that the custody of illegitimate children goes to the mother and the mother's family.

On 6 April 2011, she filed an application to suspend all existing proceedings at the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam and Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Daerah Bandaraya Shah Alam until her application to declare our previous marriage null and void is concluded.

Since then

1. The child custody bicara or hearing has been put on hold
2. The nusyuz bicara has also been put on hold
3. The kes harta sepencarian (matrimonial assets) case management has been put on hold
4. All other ongoing case proceedings have been delayed

New mention dates were set for all the above cases.

Monday 27 June 2011, was the case mention for child custody, harta sepencarian, application to vary the existing interim custody order and the application to suspend all existing cases.

The above cases were called at approximately 9:40am. It rained that morning, hence everyone was late. I was the only one present.

I stood before the Honourable Judge and informed him that my legal counsel should be up shortly as he was downstairs at the parking lot. I told the Honourable Judge that I was prepared to either have the case called again or to proceed with the mention.

The Honourable Judge asked if I had any statements to make. This was my oppurtunity. I was on air!

I notified that Honourable Judge that my ex-wife had filed an application to suspend all case proceedings. It was only an application, and not a Court Order. Therefore, it was unreasonable to suspend all the case proceedings just because my ex-wife had filed the application.

I also informed that Honourable Judge that I had filed the harta sepencarian case 9 months ago. However my ex-wife had not even filed in her pembelaan or defence despite being repeatedly ordered to do so during the last 3 mention dates. Similarly, for my application to vary the interim custody order, my ex-wife had failed to file in her affidavit jawapan over the past 5 months. I made known to the Honourable Judge my regret for such unreasonable delays.

After hearing my complaints, the Honourable Judge decided to retime the mention and wait for my lawyer.

By the time the case was recalled at 10:45am, my legal counsel, my ex-wife and her legal counsel had arrived. My legal counsel repeated what I said to the Honourable Judge, adding that my ex-wife should be given a warning to enter her defence/file in her affidavits by the next mention date, and for the child custody hearing to continue.

My ex-wife's legal counsel objected to it on grounds that such proceedings may be just a waste of time.

The Honourable Judge then decided that

1. The child custody hearing is to continue
2. Both parties are to file in their hujjah for the application to suspend all case proceedings
3. A new mention date is to be set for the remaning two cases

I was relieved. I was not only relieved that the delays have been averted, but I was glad that there was some form of justice. Justice in the sense that the cases were not unreasonably delayed without a proper court order.

Bantahan Awal

Last monday was the 2nd "sebutan" or case mention for my ex-wife's application to invalidate my previous marriage with her.

Her application was on grounds that she "has suddenly became aware" that her parents got married 1 year 3 months after she was born and that she is an illegitimate child. Therefore it was wrongful for her father to be the wali for our marriage and it should be invalidated.

Her objective of doing so is to declare that my children too were born out of wedlock. Custody of illegitimate children goes to the mother and/or the mother's family. Full stop... no questions asked.

I filed in a "bantahan awal" or preliminary objection to the application on grounds that

1. Lack of privity
2. Res judicata due to the fact that the marriage is no longer in existance
3. Her parents need to be charged for khalwat first (Hehehe!)
4. Mala fide to frustrate my child custody proceedings

The Honourable Judge ordered for my ex-wife to respond to our preliminary objection by the next mention date.

Self advocacy threat

On Monday 6 June 2011, my view of the legal profession completely changed.

Complaint 1
On 21 May 2010, my ex-wife filed an application at the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts.

As a Selangor resident, she is governed by the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 (or "EUUKIS"). This is clearly stated in Section 4 of EUUKIS. Applications to the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts can only be made by those residing in Kuala Lumpur. This is stated in Section 4 of Akta Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984.

In her application, she falsely declared that she resides in Kuala Lumpur. Making false statements in Syariah Courts is an offence under Section 30 of Akta Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984. The application was filed by her laywer.

Only days before that, she had filed in several applications at the Selangor Syariah Courts.

It is therefore clear, that the lawyer had aided and abetted my ex-wife in making the wrongful application in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court.

I subsequently lodged a complaint at the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.


Complaint 2
In December 2009, I applied to the Courts to reduce my ex-wife's visitation rights on grounds that she had neglected the children (following the khalwat incident) and she had exposed the children to immoral acts with her boyfriend.

In March 2009, the Honourable Judge ordered that the children can only be with the parents and parents' family members.

My ex-wife secretly married her boyfriend on 29 May 2010. We only found out about the marriage in June 2010 after my children were taken by my ex-wife to live with her (now) husband. Unfortunately, my children still complained about being exposed to immoral behaviors of my ex-wife and her husband.

We complained about the matter to my ex-wife's lawyer and reminded them of the Honourable Judge's order in March 2010. In August 2010, the Honourable Judge clarified that parents' family members means grand parents of the children. This clearly excludes her sexually psychopatic husband.

On 30 June 2010, my ex-wife turned up in front of my house with her husband to take the children. This is clearly in breach of the Honourable Judge's order. I reminded my ex-wife of this fact and the children also refused to go with her.

They went off and 20 minutes later, they turned up again at my doorstep with the Police. I later learnt that her lawyer had written a letter to the Police asking them to enforce her visitation rights.

The lawyer had clearly witheld the Honourable Judge's order in March 2010. Furthermore, the lawyer failed to get an enforcement order from the Syariah Courts. It is clear that the lawyer had unethically summoned the Police to my house in order to intimidate me.

Once again... I lodged a complaint at the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.


Complaint 3
On 16 August 2010, the Honourable Judge reduced my ex-wife's visitation rights.The Honourable Judge had a small voice and when gave his decision, few of us heard it correctly. Therefore there was confusion.

As expected, my ex-wife and her unsavoury lawyer-advisor were not happy. The lawyer-advisor then arranged a meeting between the Honourable Judge, my legal counsel and my ex-wife's legal counsel without the Honourable Judge's knowledge nor consent. As a result, we all imposed ourselves before the Honourable Judge on 30 August 2010.

On 1 September 2010, the Honourable Judge issued a written order reducing my ex-wife's visitation rights. She and her lawyer-advisor were obviously upset.

Then, the 4 September 2010 house tresspass took place. Her lawyer-advisor was present and instrumental in misleading the Police into thinking that my ex-wife had a valid court order. Clearly, it was their way of intimidating and punishing me for my ex-wife's reduction in visitation rights. It was also their way of getting back at me for filing in the main matrimonial assets case when they had totally overlooked it.

Once again, I lodged a complaint at the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.


In November 2010, the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board sought written clarification from my ex-wife's legal-advisor and lawyer for the unethical acts.

Between December 2010 and January 2011, they wrote to the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board stating that

1. The Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board had no jurisdiction over syariah matters
2. My complaints are against the Syariah Court proceedings which has yet to be concluded (and not against their actions)
3. They had not committed any misconduct as they are not the complainant (i.e. my) lawyer 
4. They were purely acting under my ex-wife's instructions

Sadly, on Monday 6 June 2011, I received a letter from the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board stating that my complaint has been rejected. No reasons were given.

I find it ridiculous that

1. Lawyers can act unethically when it comes to Syariah matters
2. Misconduct can only occur against their client and no one else
3. Lawyers are absolved from any wrongdoings simply because they are under client's instructions

Let's put it this way, can an auditor be absolved from giving the wrong opinion simply because their client told them to do so? Is this a classic case of a lawyer protecting another lawyer and/or the profession? Classic self advocacy in full effect!

My trust and opnion of the legal profession in Malaysia has somewhat changed since.

Section 448 dropped

On 4 September 2010, my ex-wife broke into my house together with a locksmith and 6 packers. She was assisted by her lawyer and her husband. During the incident, she took away (amongst others) furniture items, electrical items and home furnishings (including curtains and flower pots).

I lodged a police report immediately after the incident.

In October 2010, I learnt that the police were investigating the case under Section 448 of the Penal Code (i.e. for house trespass). I was doubtful and not convinced but the police thought otherwise.

In March 2011, I then learnt that my ex-wife was going to be charged in court under Section 448 of the Penal Code on 15 April 2011.

The next mention date was set for 18 May 2011.

I just learnt that the case against my ex-wife has been dropped. I later learnt that the Head of Prosecution for the State of Selangor had dropped the case on grounds that there was no trespass as the house is registered under joint names.

My doubts have been proven.

Defence - Part 4

On 18 February 2010, the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam allowed my mum to be a party to the child custody proceedings.

In response, my ex-wife tried to get a wrongful conviction against my mum under Section 377E of the Penal Code, i.e. child molest, by teaching and forcing my son to lie to a child psychiatrist. She subsequently lodged a police report but police eventually dropped the case.

On 29 May 2010, my ex-wife got married to her boyfriend in Kuala Lumpur.

It was also during that period that we heard that her boyfriend (now husband) was under investigation by the police under Section 377E of the Penal Code. Her boyfriend (now husband) was even detained overnight in the police lockup during the investigation!

Due to our grave concern of the possilibity that my children will be exposed to such a person, I subsequently applied to the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam to review my ex-wife's visitation rights.

On 17 August 2010, the Honourable Judge cut my ex-wife's visitation by half! This obviously infuriated her. Her advisor even arranged a meeting for my ex-wife's legal counsel and my legal counsel to 'clarify' the Honourable Judge's decision before His Lordship without His Lordship's knowledge on 30 August 2010. As expected, the Honourable Judge was furious when we imposed ourselves upon him.

Obviously disappointed, my ex-wife lodged a complaint against the Honourable Judge at the Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia. Personally, I don't think it is a very clever thing to do.

On top of that, on 24 August 2010, I filed in my "Harta Sepencarian" or matrimonial assets case. As mentioned in my previous posts, my ex-wife had filed in an ex-parte application to freeze all my assets in October 2009. She didn't file in any "Harta Sepencarian" or "kes induk".

The "Harta Sepencarian" case notice was delivered to my ex-wife on 2 September 2010. My ex-wife (more specifically her unsavoury advisor) realised their mistake of not filing in the "kes induk". They suddenly realised that the validity of their ex-parte injunction is therefore in doubt.

Just 4 days after that, on Saturday 6 September 2010 my ex-wife and her legal advisor turned up on my doorstep with her husband, a locksmith and 6 packers. They forced their way into my house and basically emptied it, taking beds, sofa sets, cabinets, curtains, flower pots, hi-fi sets, electrical items etc. She also cut and changed all the locks and evicted me from my own home.

Her motive was clear. Firstly, she wanted to punish me and to provoke me for reducing her visitation rights. Secondly, she wanted to cause grave inconvenience to me 6 days prior to Hari Raya Aidil Fitri and before I was able to formally challenge the validity of her ex-parte injunction order. The "raid" was also conducted over the weekend, so that I had no access to legal help or support.

Much to her disappointment, I kept my cool. Instead, I lodged a police report, which to my surprise she is now charged under Section 448 of the Penal Code for house trespass.

Less than 3 weeks after the incident, my ex-wife and her husband patrolled the area near my house and saw my mum having a drink at the local mamak shop. Her husband got out of the car, went over to my mum and insulted my mum in public. My mum kept her cool and ignored him. He went away.

About 5 minutes later, he returned. This time my ex-wife followed him with a camera. Again my he insulted my mum in public. However, this time my mum could not take the dispicable vulgarities thrown at hear anymore. She splashed her drink on him and walked off.

My mum went home and subsequently drove over to the police station to lodge a report. As expected, my mum saw my ex-wife and her husband there lodging a police report against her for assault. The strange thing was that, he was bleeding on his chin. After interviewing all witnesses, the Section 323 of the Penal Code (assault) case against my mum was dropped. We later learnt that my ex-wife and her husband was at IPD Shah Alam until about 4am, trying to convince the investigation officer to throw my mum in the police lockup.

It appears that my ex-wife was trying ever so hard to get an assault (or similar) conviction against me and my mum via such provocations. She was trying ever so hard to get me and my mum a criminal record. Her efforts had not only failed, but had led to my ex-wife being charged for house trespass under Section 448 of the Penal Code.

We thought it would end there. But we were wrong...

Yet another misrepresentation

Yesterday was the 3rd mention date for my application to "Ubah Perintah" or vary the court order with regards to my ex-wife's visitation rights.

The application was made due to our grave concern over

1. my ex-wife's total disregard to court orders issued in the months of November and December 2010 to return the children to me; and
2. the dispicable things that she did to the children during that time. I plan to discuss this in a later post.

During the first case mention on 24 January 2011, as expected, my ex-wife turned up alone requesting time to appoint a lawyer. Typical delay tactics again.

During the second case mention was on 10 March 2011. My ex-wife was in court with her lawyer. However, she did not appear before the judge when the case was called for mention. Her lawyer claims that he was only just appointed and will need time to file in a response. The Honourable Judge instructed for her affidavit in response is to be filed in by the next mention date.

The next mention date was 25 April 2011. However, I was not able to attend as I was on medical leave due to foot injuries. My legal counsel's representative reported that my ex-wife's lawyers complained to the Honourable Judge that the have filed in an application to delay all court proceedings pending her application to delcare me previous marriage to her to be null and void. The next mention date was set for June 2011.

My ex-wife's lawyer went on to say that they have tried to serve the summons to me 7 times! What a liar. The process server only came to the office once and he had the audacity to tell the Honourable Judge that they tried to serve the summons to me 7 times???

As the muslims say... lawyers have one foot in hell

Wakalah

A wakalah is a document in which a person appoints a syariah lawyer to represent him/her and to act for him/her for a particular syariah court kes and to appear in all the related case proceedings.

The wakalah is usually read before a judge or a court registrar. However, in the State of Selangor, this requirement has been relaxed where wakalahs may also be read before a court officer.

Another mystery

Last Monday, when I was in a meeting, my secretary called to say that a process server from the legal firm representing my ex-wife was at the office and had some documents to serve to me.

As I was away from the office, my secretary went to see the process server. He told my secretary that he had a "wakalah" to serve to me. He had to serve the wakalah to me on that day as there was a case mention on the following day, i.e. Tuesday.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no case mention scheduled for Tuesday. It is also strange for wakalahs to be served to the defendants or respondents.

What are they up to? Why resort to deceit? Something was not right.

House Trespass - Next mention date

As mentioned in my earlier post, my ex-wife was formally charged in court under Section 448 of the Penal Code on 15 April 2011.

With the help of some friends, I found out that

• the next mention date was set for 18 May 2011 for her to appoint a lawyer; and
• she was charged at the Mahkamah Trafik / Juvana

Typical delay tactics again.

Charged

I just got word that my ex-wife was charged under Section 448 Penal Code at the Shah Alam Magistrates Court (Criminal) last Friday 15 April 2010.

Bail was set at RM1,000.

Defence - Part 3

I divorced my ex-wife on 25 September 2009.

Just prior to the divorce, she applied for an intervener for her mum to be included as a defendant in the Hadhanah case.

On 9 November 2009, she obtained a ex-parte court order from Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Shah Alam which grants her visitation. As mentioned earlier, her application was on grounds that I had purportedly disallowed her any visitation whatsoever.

The real purpose of obtaining "formal" visitation was purely to gain access to indoctrinate the children again.

It all started on 16 July 2009, the date I served the ex-parte custody order to my ex-wife. That was the day she realised that I not only knew of her extra marital affair, but I had considerable evidence to prove it.

About a year before that, she had stopped sleeping in the master bedroom with me and the children. She slept alone in my daughter's room. She claims that she suffers from backaches and that the orthopedic matress in my daughter's room reduces her backpains. She also didn't allow me or the children to sleep with her claiming that she needed a good night's sleep.

However, based on her cellphone bill, it is clear to me that the purpose of secluding herself was to make calls and exchange SMSes with her boyfriend late at night and/or in early hours of the morning.

After being served with the ex-parte custody order on 16 July 2009, she suddenly insisted on sleeping with the children. Strange isn't it? She also took steps to severe all contact between my family and the children. My children were threatened and scolded everytime they went to see my parents. She would also ask her father to come to the house whenever she is not around to ensure that the children don't go and see my parents.

Due to the mental duress and the indoctrination from my ex-wife, the children started to be terrified of me. They were even too scared to go out with me for a ride in the car which they so freqently enjoy every evening.

It was blatantly clear that she was brainwashing and mentally torturing the children.

This continued even after she obtained the ex-parte visitation order. That was her objective. To gain access to brainwash and indoctrinate the children again. She was not interested in the children's welfare. This was evident when my children complained that my ex-wife would leave them in the office or at her sister's house while she disappears and returns home late at night. We later found out that she was helping her boyfriend renovate and move to his (and later their) new house.

During a case mention on 21 December 2009, we applied for an intervener to include my mum as a plaintif in the Hadhanah case. No less than 5 hours after that, my ex-wife was caught for khalwat with her boyfriend at her boyfriend's house. The children was supposed to be under her care at that time!

With strong evidence of her extra marital affair and now khalwat, her chances of getting custody appears to be extremely bleak. As expected, she got desperate.

The only way for her to win custody now was to present to the courts that my mum and I are of considerably far worse character than her. She took my children to see a child psychologist and forced them to tell the doctor that my mum had molested my son. They were also forced to tell the doctor that I was well aware it and I told them to keep it a secret.

I knew nothing of what she was doing until one day, my chilren told me that Dr K wanted to see me. I contacted Dr K and introduced myself. Dr K's immediate words to me was "I want to see you together with your children urgently".

On 6 April 2010, I brought my children to see Dr K. She interviewed the children and after the session, I had one of the biggest surprises of my life. Dr K told me that the children had previously told her that

1. I was the one having an affair (with my ex-wife's boyfriend's 2nd wife)
2. My mum have been molesting my son
3. I was well aware of it

However, being a child psychologist, Dr K was able to see that the children were under duress from my ex-wife. Dr K also told me that my ex-wife had requested for a report to be issued. Dr K was reluctant but had issued a qualified interim report.

I was sure that it would NOT end there. Knowing my ex-wife and her unsavoury advisor, they were definitely up to something bigger.

I checked with the police, and I was horrified to find out that my ex-wife has lodged a police report on 1 April 2010 against my mum for child sexual abuse. The police had opened the case and was investigating my mum under Section 377E of the Penal Code. We were subsequently called to IPD Shah Alam to to have our statements taken. We also learnt that my ex-wife has brought the children to the Child Protection Unit ("CPU") in Bukit Aman.

Under the Evidence Of Child Witness Act 2007, only recordings of children made by the police may be used as evidence in court. The police has a unit under the CPU for this purpose.

In the end, after 6 months of investigations and upon instructions by the Deputy Public Prosecutor, the police had classified the case as NFA (No Further Action). This was just the start...

1st Mention Overkill

Yesterday was the first mention for my ex-wife's permohonan to "mengisytiharkan bahawa pernikahan antara Defendan dan Plaintif pada [date] dengan berwalikan [Plaintif's father's name] adalah tidak sah dan terbatal dari segi hukum syara' mengikut peruntukan di bawah seksyen 61(3)(b)(i) Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islan (Negeri Selangor) 2003".

The case proceeding was held at Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya.

Much to my surprise, my ex-wife came with TWO senior lawyers.

Two senior lawyers attending the first mention at Mahkamah Rendah... it can only mean one thing. My ex-wife is extremely serious about this case.

Why is that so?

If the marriage is declared null and void, they reckon that it will have a material impact on the Hadhanah case, where custody will go to her on grounds that my children are "anak anak tak sah taraf". Personally, I think the impact will only be on the matrimonial assets and the nusyuz cases.

My legal counsel advised the Honourable Judge that we will be putting in a "Bantahan Awal" or preliminary objection. The Honourable Judge ordered us to file in our written preliminary objections and summary prior to the next mention date set for mid-June 2011.

More defrosting nonsense

Today I received a call from Bank C informing me that they are ready to refund me the monies in my credit card account.

I find it ridiculous that they saw it fit to freeze (oopss... cancel) my credit card on the same day after receiving the ex-parte court order from my ex-wife's lawyers but has taken eleven (11) days to decide to refund me my money.

It didn't end there.

The officer then told me that Bank C's credit card division cannot deposit the money into my savings account because my savings account is with Bank C's Islamic division. I told the officer I could not believe what she has just told me as they are all under Bank C. The only explanation she could come up with was "it is difficult".

So now they will have to spend time and money to issue and mail me the cheque instead of a simple electronic transfer. How clever and efficient!

For the record, as of 11 April 2011, eleven (11) days after serving the Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah court order to Bank C, my current account still remains frozen.

Defence - Part 2

I divorced my wife (now ex-wife) on 25 September 2009.

As we were no longer husband and wife, and due to the fact that she had already started to live with her sister at Putra Heights just prior to that, I asked her to move out. Strangely enough, she was reluctant to do so.

She then went on the offensive.

Firstly, just prior to the divorce, my ex-wife had filed a "Permohonan Pencelahan" to include her mother and her sister as Defendants in the Hadhanah case.

As mentioned in my previous post, the priority for child custody is as follows

1. Child's mother
2. Maternal grandmother
3. Father
4. Paternal grandmother

Clearly my ex-wife was well aware that her chances of being granted custody was very slim. Therefore, in order to stop me from being granted custody and for her gain access to the children, my ex-wife filed an application for her mother to be included in the Hadhanah case. Clever eh?

However, I objected to the application on grounds that the person named as her mother in my ex-wife's "Permohonan Pencelahan" had a different name from the one recorded in my ex-wife's birth certificate. The names were miles apart.

As my ex-wife (and her mother) was not able to provide and documentary evidence that her mother carried both names, my ex-wife then proceeded to do a DNA test at Jabatan Kimia Malaysia in January 2010. DNA tests at Jabatan Kimia Malaysia costs RM1,000.


The second thing she did was to freeze my bank accounts and assets. On 6 October 2009 she obtained an ex-parte court order from Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam to prohibit any transactions on my properties, bank accounts and credit card. Her application was on the basis

1. I was purportedly in the process of disposing off assets, more specifically shares in order to prejudice her claims on matrimonial assets; and
2. I had "mencampakkan" her "barang-barang" outside the house and her "barang-barang bertaburan di keliling rumah".

What really baffles me is that the courts had actually granted her application despite the fact that

1. she exhibited a share transfer form that was executed 3 YEARS prior to that (i.e. in May 2006) to support her claim that I was purportedly in the process of disposing off matrimonial assets; and
2. the pictures she exhibited DOES NOT show any "barang-barang" that had been subjected to the act of "mencampakkan" nor any "barang-barang" that was "bertaburan di keliling rumah". Instead the photos were of her personal belongings that were neatly packed and arranged for collection.

I was absolutely livid! How could the courts be so blind? Didn't they read or check the affidavits and cross checked the exhibits?

As mentioned in my previous posts, on 8 October 2009, my ex-wife's lawyers served the order to the banks and my accounts were frozen on the same date.

It is clear that the intent of the application was clearly to suffocate me financially and to put me under pressure in hope that I will give up. This is evident when

1. they didn't seem too interested to serve the order to me, such that they exceeded the 10-day service period set by the courts; and
2. they did not file in the "kes induk" within 14 days

The rest was history...


The third thing she did was to paint a bad picture of me before the courts.

After the divorce, I invited her to come over to visit the children during weekends. She refused. Instead, she started to send SMSes asking for the children to be dropped off at public places, and for me to leave immediately after dropping them off and I am prohibited from monitoring the children. Is she mad? Naturally, I advised her to cooperate and visit the children at home. Oddly, she started sending SMSes pleading to visit the children and accusing me of depriving her from seeing the children. This went on for several weeks.

Little that I know that it was all a trick. It was a very well orchestrated plan.

On 24 October 2009, there was a Hadhanah case mention. Just 3 working days prior to that, her lawyers sent a letter to my lawyer (copied to the Courts) accusing me of disallowing my ex-wife from seeing the children.

During the case mention, her lawyers highlighted about the 19 October 2009 letter before the Honourable Judge. As we had only received the letter, the Honourable Judge allowed me up to the next mention date i.e. 21 December 2009 to respond to the letter.

However, a week after that, my ex-wife filed in an ex-parte application for visitation rights. Her application was on grounds that I had completely disallowed her from seeing the children and that I had ignored her lawyer's letter. Photographs of all her SMSes "begging" to see the children and the 19 October 2009 letter were exhibited. Typically, my ex-wife had dishonestly witheld all my SMSes and emails inviting her to visit the children.

Sadly, on 9 November 2009 the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam allowed her application. She was granted on average 3 days overnight visitation every week which is as good as a joint custody. What's the point of having an interim custody then?

Why didn't the courts remember that I was given until 21 December 2009 to respond to the letter? Shouldn't the courts have at least ordered that the application should be heard interparte?

To put it bluntly, I was beginning to lose faith in the Syariah Legal System in the State of Selangor.

The answer

Yesterday was supposed to be the restart of the "bicara" or hearing for the Hadhanah case.

As expected, my ex-wife's lawyers notified the Honourable Judge of some recent discoveries with regards to the "status sah taraf perkahwinan Plaintif Pertama (i.e. me) dan Defendan Pertama (i.e. my ex-wife)" which purportedly had effects on the Hadhanah proceedings.

Also as expected, I was served with the summons to appear at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya "untuk menjawab suatu tuntutan terhadap anda oleh Plaintif (i.e. my ex-wife) yang dinamakan di atas yang butir-butirnya ada dinyatakan dalam Penyata Tuntutan yang diendorskan di sini.". For this case, my ex-wife is the Plaintif, whereas I am the Defendant.

Purpose of the application was to "mengisytiharkan bahawa pernikahan antara Defendan dan Plaintif pada [date] dengan berwalikan [Plaintif's father's name] adalah tidak sah dan terbatal dari segi hukum syara' mengikut peruntukan di bawah seksyen 61(3)(b)(i) Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islan (Negeri Selangor) 2003."

The reason for doing this was because "sah tidaknya nikah antara Plaintif dan Defendan berkait secara langsung dengan status hak jagaan Anak-anak tersebut".

Her main arguments include

"Plaintif dengan sesungguhnya percaya dan yakin bahawa kedua ibu dan bapa Plaintif yang hanya bernikah selepas satu (1) tahun tiga (3) bulan Plaintif dilahirkan maka kedua-dua mereka tidak mempunyai ikatan pernikahan yang sah mengikut hukum syarak ketika Plaintif dilahirkan, menjadikan Plaintif anak tidak sah taraf"

"Pernikahan Plaintif dan Defendan telah diwalikan oleh bapa Plaintif walaupun pada ketika itu bapa Plaintif mengetahui dan sedar sepenuhnya bahawa Plaintif adalah anak tidak sah taraf dirinya"

"Bapa Plaintif sedar dan mengetahui sepenuhnya syarat-syarat rukun nikah dan bahawa dia tidak boleh menikahkan Plaintif disegi syarak"

"Bapa Plaintif telah menyembunyikan fakta sebenar takut isterinya akan dihantar balik ke Philipina"


So there it is...

Defrosted and disappeared!

Yesterday afternoon I received a call from Bank C's Credit Card Centre.

They took note of the Mahkamah Rayuan Selangor court order but informed me that my credit card has been cancelled. I have to apply for a new one.

I asked about the credit balance on the credit card account. The officer informed me that the balance may be transferred to my new card (assuming I applied for one) or it may be refunded to my bank account.

I then asked about my credit card points. To my horror, I was told that the points will be lost. I may appeal at the Bukit Damansara branch.

I informed the officer that the 6 October 2009 ex-parte court order was merely to freeze my credit card. Not to cancel it! As usual, she blamed it on "procedure".

It is clear I am no longer welcomed at Bank C.

I will now be drafting a nasty letter to the CEO and closing all affected accounts with the blasted bank.

Still defrosting

On 31 March 2011, I faxed a copy of the Court Order issued by the Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Selangor to Bank C and Bank M.

Yesterday, I called Bank M to complain on their discriminatory practices. They froze my current account on the very same of being notified of my ex-wife's injunction order, but are taking their own sweet time to unfreeze my account despite being served with the relevant court order. The officer promised me that my account will be reactivated today.

This morning I received a call from the same officer. After 6 days after being served with the court order, my account at Bank M has now been reactivated.

As for today, 6 April 2011, my accounts in Bank C has yet to be unfrozen.

The boyfriend's 2nd ex-wife's story

As mentioned in my previous post, my wife's (now ex-wife) boyfriend had two wives. He divorced both of them during my ex-wife's affair with him.

On 9 September 2009, he attacked and injured his 2nd ex-wife (let's call her "S") for alledgedly divulging personal information about him to a private investigator.

According to S, she knew nothing of the affair and had no clue why she was divorced. She reckons that my ex-wife's boyfriend was extremely embarassed after realising that she finally knew that he was cheating on her. Hence the attack.

After the incident, he lodged a police report alleging that he was attacked by S. He then boarded a flight to Jakarta and returned 3 days later. He was seen by various people healthy and without injury.

Due to the injuries suffered, S had to be carried to the car and taken to the police station. After looking at her condition, the police advised her to seek medical treatment first. Later that evening, she lodged a police report. She had to be on crutches for 2 weeks.

As she was terrified of further attacks, she decided to stay with her sister in Shah Alam. Obviously, her two small children went with her.

Upon his return from Jakarta and after learning that S had lodged a police report against him, he suddenly developed injuries. He turned up at the police station with bruises on his foot and scratches on his arms.

About a week after the incident, my wife's (now ex-wife) boyfriend went to Mahkamah Syariah Tinggi Shah Alam and obtained an ex-parte Interim Custody Order for his children. He did exactly what I did! It is obvious that my ex-wife and her lawyer(s) may have prompted him to do that.

His application was on grounds that

1. S is a violent person who had injured him; and
2. S had run away with the children and denied him access.

In the mean time, the police conducted an investigation for the assault pursuant to Section 323 of the Penal Code.

The investigation was concluded in March 2010. The case against him was dropped on grounds that

1. It was a merely a husband and wife domestic dispute; and
2. Both parties were injured during the incident

The 2nd ex-wife then lodged an appeal at the Attoney General's Chambers as well as the IPD Petaling Jaya. After another round of review, the case was again dropped. We later learned that the case was dropped on the following grounds

1. Based on the Government hospital's medical report, the injury sustained was not serious. Even though S was on crutches for 2 weeks, the hospital's assessment was that S merely sustained bruises. The police were reluctant to act on bruises;
2. The police was of the view that the 2nd ex-wife had a motive, i.e. to discredit her ex-husband because of the child custody proceedings

So it would seem that if you attacked (and injured) someone, all you have to do is to fake your own injury and lodge a police report against the victim. Also try to ensure that the victim only suffers from bruises. Small minor scratches are acceptable. You should also "fabricate" a motive in case the victim lodges a police report against you. If you are or were once married with that person, it will be much easier. The police and the Deputy Public Prosecutors will be quick to classify it as a domestic matter. Cool eh?

Defence - Part 1

On 14 July 2009, the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam granted me an ex-parte Interim Custody Order over my two children.

I applied for the interim order on grounds that

1. My wife (now ex-wife) was having an extra-marital affair; and
2. She threatened to run off with the children to Labuan sometime in June 2009.

As it was an interlocutory ex-parte application, I had to submit evidence to support my claim. I exhibited a number of pictures from the CCTV recordings taken from my wife's boyfriend's apartment car park and lifts. These included pictures of them holding hands, hugging and kissing in public places.

There were also photographs of her handphone with explicit SMS messages from her boyfriend such as "... pls help me... I really must hv sex, i want u n i need u so badly..."

A week later, I filed in the main "Hadhanah" case or the "kes induk".

My application was on grounds that

1. My wife (now ex-wife) was having an extra-marital affair and had demonstrated bad behaviour openly in public, i.e. Section 84(b) of Enakmen Undang-undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 (or "EUUKIS"); and
2. Due to the extra-marital affair, she had neglected the well being of the children, i.e. Section 84(e) of EUUKIS.

Having an affair does not get captured under Section 84(b). However, bad behaviour openly in public is.

Because of the interlocutory ex-parte application, my ex-wife was well aware of the CCTV as well as the SMS evidence.

So what was her defence? How could she counter the case that I had put forth?

Her first course of action (based on her lawyer's instructions I'm sure) was to discredit me. However, any accusations thrown at me must be proven in Court. So how would she achieve that?

As encouraged and taught by her lawyer, she started making numerous (false) police reports against me. For example, she reported that

1. I had purportedly accused her of sleeping with her colleague and she denied having an extra-marital affair;
2. I had purportedly disallowed her from having lunch with my daughter;
3. I had purportedly beaten up my 5 year old son;
4. My parents had purportedly constantly disturbed and traumatised my maid and my children;
5. She forced my maid to lodge a police report against my parents, claiming that my parents purportedly were constantly harrassing the maid and the children; 
6. I had purportedly forced and dragged my children to follow me to visit my grandmother;
7. I had purportedly kidnapped my children (when in fact I went back to Melaka for Hari Raya and she refused to follow).

The list goes on and on...

Secondly, her strategy (again with her lawyer's advise) was to get close to the children, to completely severe the children's interaction with me and my parents and to indoctrinate/coax the children. Her lawyer's plan was then to get the Honourable Judge to interview the children and hoping that the children would choose to be with her.

In order to achieve this, she started off by threatening the children as well as to poison the children's mind. They were warned to stay away from me and my family. All of a sudden, my children were terrified of me and my parents. They refused to go for a ride in the car with me (which they look forward to everyday) or to see my parents who lives just accross the road. My children were not even allowed to "buka puasa" with my parents during Ramadhan.

After lodging so many police reports against me and especially my parents, my wife (now ex-wife) then attempted to use the police reports as (false) evidence to obtain an ex-parte injunction against my parents. Her application was to stop my parents from coming to my house and to stop them from seeing my children. The (ridiculous) application was probably thrown out as no such injunction has ever been granted by the courts.

Thirdly, their biggest worry is the CCTV evidence. Understandably, it is extremely embarassing to have their affair exposed in such a manner. It also proves without a shadow of doubt of their affair. In order to suppress this evidence, they got my ex-wife's boyfriend to obtain an injunction from the civil courts. The injunction was to stop me from using the CCTV evidence in the Syariah Courts on grounds of defamation.

At this juncture, I wish to point out that it is my personal opinion that the lawyer advising my wife (now ex-wife) may have taken my ex-wife and her boyfriend for a ride. Either that or the lawyer had simply not done much research into this matter. It is blatantly clear in statute that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over the Syariah Courts and vice versa. Till today, I don't see the point of taking that civil court injunction. It did more harm than good to them as it clearly proves that they were the people in the CCTV recordings.

Just prior to that, in August 2009, my wife (now ex-wife) had rummaged through my belongings and found my thumbdrive hidden in my trousers pocket. In there was a recording of a conversation between a private investigator and my wife's (now ex-wife) boyfriend's 2nd ex-wife. Confused?

Well put it this way. My ex-wife's boyfriend had 2 wives. She made him divorce both wives during the affair. The PI had tracked down and interviewed the boyfriend's 2nd ex-wife (let's call her "S"). PIs being PIs, they bragged about their ability to enter into houses and/or offices.

After finding out about the recording

1. The boyfriend beat up S on 9 September 2009 for apparently divulging personal information about him to the PI; and
2. The boyfriend had used the recording to support his claim that I had purportedly trespassed into his house and/or office.

Therefore, on 29 October 2009, my wife's (now ex-wife) boyfriend obtained an ex-parte injunction  against me and my parents from the civil courts. The injunction prohibits me from entering his house and office, prohibits me from using the CCTV evidence in the Syariah Court proceedings and prohibits me and my parents from "defaming" him.

His application was on the following grounds

1. I had purportedly trespassed into his house and/or office to obtain his personal documents;
2. I had wrongfully accused him of having an affair with my wife (now ex-wife) and that the CCTV evidence is fabricated; and
3. My parents had purportedly defamed him.

Finally, my wife's (now ex-wife) lawyer tried to find dirt on my parents. The lawyer tried to do a full check on my parents for "insider trading". If convicted, my parents could be jailed for up to 10 years, fined no less than RM1 million or both. Till today, no complaint, investigation, charge or conviction have been made against my parents.

With all the nonsense that was going on, on 25 September 2009, I divorced my wife.

Initially, I thought that with her out of my life, all the insanities would stop. Little that I know that what followed after that was probably the most turbulent, ridiculous and challenging part of my life.

What a waste of time

As mentioned in my previous post(s), on 6 October 2009 my ex-wife obtained an Ex-Parte Syariah Court Order which amongst others ordered for all my bank accounts to be frozen.

On 9 September 2010, I filed in a judicial review and on 17 January 2011, the Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Selangor decided that my ex-wife's Ex-Parte Syariah Court Order cannot be enforced. More specifically, the order reads as follows

"SETELAH KAMI MENELITI Permohonan dan Affidavit Pemohon, ekshibit-ekshibit dan alasan-alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Pemohon, MAKA KAMI SEBULAT SUARA MEMERINTAHKAN seperti berikut

1. Mahkamah meluluskan permohonan semakan ini; dan

2. Perintah ex-parte bertarikh 6/10/2009 melalui Kes Mal No. 10100-032-xxxx-2009 adalah tidak boleh berkuatkuasa kerana kegagalan Responden memfailkan kes induk dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh perintah diberikan dan kegagalan Responden menterahkan salinan perintah ex-parte tersebut kepada Pemohon dalam tempoh (10) hari dari tarikh perintah diberikan"



The court order was sealed on 22 March 2011 and I received a copy of the same on 31 March 2010.

That very night, I faxed a copy of the said order to two banks. I also asked a colleague to serve a copy of the said order to Bank C.

Having heard nothing, on 1 April 2011, I phoned the officer in charge at Bank C. After rummaging through some papers, the officer confirmed receiving the court order. Obviously they haven't read it! I asked the officer when my bank account can be unfrozen. The officer's answer were ridiculous

1. Encik nak pakai account ni lagi ke?
2. Perintah tu tak sebutkan pun account Encik kena "unfreeze"

With a blood beginning to boil, I took a deep breath and had to go throught the lonnnnnnnnnnng process of explaining the court order to the officer. Don't they ever engage that lump of protein between their ears?

The officer then told me that they have nothing to do with credit cards and I have to call the credit card centre to unfreeze my credit card. Hey! As far as I am concerned, I am dealing with Bank C. I don't care whether it is current accounts or credit cards. I applied for my credit card at that branch, and my accounts are there. So if I want to unfreeze my accounts, I don't want to be having to call the whole world!!!

Despite my objections, the officer seemed reluctant. I knew if I left it to them, it will probably be next year before my credit card is unfrozen.

I subsequently called the credit card centre. Again... I had to go through the same lengthy process of explaining the situation. To be fair, the officer at the credit card centre (En Johan) seemed eager to help.

Looking back... I faxed the court order to both banks on 31 March 2011. It is now 2 April 2011. My accounts at both banks are still frozen.

My ex-wife's lawyers faxed the Ex-Parte Syariah High Court order to the banks on 8 October 2009. All the banks froze all my accounts on the same day. Unfair and discriminatory practices in full effect.

The bottom line is, going through the court process is not only costly and lengthy, but is a whole load of hassle to unwind the damage that has been done. Nobody wins in such circumstances. Unfortunately, there are people willing to abuse the court process simply to put pressure or cause grievance to others. What a complete waste of time.

Section 448 Penal Code

On 4 September 2010, my ex-wife came with 9 other people and forced their way into my house. They practically emptied the house and evicted me.

Immediately after the incident, I lodged a police report. Much to my surprise, I was summoned by the Police sometime in October 2010 to appear before IPD Shah Alam to have my statement recorded. Naturally I obliged.

I was rather doubtful that the police would take action on this matter. Afterall my ex-wife could argue that this is a syariah court matter that has yet to be decided and the police would usually not take action unless it is a clearcut criminal offence.

Much to my surprise, the investigating officer (IO) informed me that the police are investigating the matter under Section 448 of the Penal Code, i.e. for House Trespass. The IO seemed confident. Notwithstanding this, I still had my doubts.

After about 2 months, I heard nothing from the IO. My lawyers wrote to the police asking for an update. In response, the police notified us that the investigation was still ongoing.

Another 2 months passed and to the best of my knowledge nothing happened. This time I decided to write to the police on 23 February 2011 asking for an update.

On 28 March 2011, I received the following letter from the IPK Selangor

"Dengan Segala hormatnya saya diarah untuk merujuk kepada surat tuan bertarikh 23 Februari 2011 mengenai perkara di atas.

2. Dimaklumkan bahawa kertas siasatan berkaitan laporan ini iaitu Shah Alam IP:xxxx/2010 telah dirujuk kepada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Selangor pada 18 Mac 2011 dengan arahan untuk menuduh Suspek atas kesalahan Pencerobohan Rumah di bawah Seksyen 448 Kanun Keseksaan.

3. Sekian dimaklumkan, terima kasih."


I was speechless.

Looking back, my initial doubt(s) was probably due to the fact that I had assumed that the police would investigate my ex-wife for robery or stealing.

But for trespass?

Again looking back, it was wrong for her to force her way into the house. Consider this simple question - can we simply break into a tenanted property even though we own it?

Furthermore, it has to be said that the Ex-Parte Court Order used by my ex-wife to gain entry into the house was no longer enforcable. Moreover, her lawyer(s) had failed to advise her and had disregarded the proper procedures as provided for by law to gain entry into the house.

• First of all, Section 154 of Enakmen Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syariah (Negeri Selangor) 2003 states that one requires the Court's permission to enforce the order.
• Secondly, Section 159 of the same enactment states that specific details about the items (to be seized) needs to be listed down in the enforcement order.
• Finally, Section 165 of the enactment states that a Bailiff can only break into a house with the Court's permission.

No court order is above the law.

As a result of being ill-advised (or most likely with ill-intent), my ex-wife is now faced with the prospect of being slapped with a criminal record.

The Criminal Trespass

Yesterday, I received a call from my syariah legal counsel's assistant informing me that the Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Selangor Court Order is now ready for collection.

As mentioned in my previous post, on 17 January 2011 the Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Selangor had ruled that my ex-wife's Ex-Parte Syariah High Court Order dated 6 October 2009 ("Ex-Parte Order") is not enforcable on grounds that

1. My ex-wife had failed to file in the "Kes Induk" for within 14 days; and
2. My ex-wife had failed to serve the order to me within 10 days as provided for in the Ex-Parte Order.

The requirement to file in the "Kes Induk" is clearly stated in Arahan Amalan 11 Tahun 2003.

An ex-parte hearing is when a party wishes to get a temporary court order on grounds of urgency. The other party (i.e. the respondent) will not be called to defend himself/herself. The question is, is this really fair that the courts would grant such an order without giving a chance or equitably listening to the views of the respondent? It is for this reason that the courts would only allow such applications on grounds of urgency and with condition that the applicant promises to pay damages in the event the applicant has not been truthful and/or failed to provide full and frank disclosure in his/her application.

An ex-parte court order cannot stand on its own. It must have an underlying "kes induk". The "kes induk" will then determine the permanent court order subject to a full trial. That is why Arahan Amalan 11 Tahun 2003 requires the applicant to file in the "kes induk" within 14 days if he/she has not already done so.

That's my two cents worth on ex-parte court applications.

The Ex-Parte Court Order obtained by my ex-wife amongst others was to

1. Freeze all my bank accounts and shares
2. Injunct me from dealing with and remaining in the matrimonial home
3. Injunct me from removing any items from the matrimonial home
4. Allow her to enter into the matrimonial home to take posession of her personal belongings

After obtaining the Ex-Parte Court Order, my ex-wife's lawyers expeditiously served the order to the banks on 7 and 8 October 2009. FULL STOP. Nothing else was done. They did not even attempt to file in the "kes induk".

It is therefore clear, that the purpose of obtaining the order was NOT on equitable grounds but merely to cripple me financially. That is completely unethical and clearly hitting below the belt!

Over the course of the next few months, everyone appeared to have been focussed on the "Hadhanah" case and have completely forgotten about the "Harta Sepencarian" case.

As my wife hasn't filed in the "Harta Sepencarian" case, which is the "kes induk" for the Ex-Parte Court Order, I proceed to file it on 24 August 2010. My ex-wife was subsequently notified on 2 September 2010.

On Saturday 4 September 2010, only TWO DAYS after being notified of the "kes induk" and 11 MONTHS after obtaining the Ex-Parte Court Order, my ex-wife turned up at the gates of my house with her husband, a lawyer, a locksmith and 6 packers. By the time I got to the front door, the locksmith and a packer had climbed over the fence and was attempting to dismantle the autogate.

It was clear that they wanted to gain entry into my house. Upon my objections, my ex-wife and her lawyer insisted that they are enforcing the Ex-Parte Court Order. I notified them that the Ex-Parte Court Order is no longer effective but the lawyer defiantly claimed that for as long as there is no court order to set aside the Ex-Parte Court Order, it remains effective.

I could not get hold of my lawyer as he was attending a course. His assistant told me not to fight and to step aside should my safety be at risk. Since it was me versus 10 of them (with one of them a dilutional desperado, one with acute psychosexual disorder and one emotionally disturbed lunatic), I had no choice but to step aside.

During the next few hours, the locksmith cut and replaced all the locks in my house. The packers packed and took away sofa sets, cupboards, bed, electrical items, curtains, flower pots, TV cabinet, pots and pans, wall clock, home furnishings etc. I was then asked to leave the house.

I objected many times during the course of the day that it was wrong for my ex-wife to sieze such items as they were matrimonial assets, especially I have just filed in the "Harta Sepencarian" case. It was also wrongful to evict and/or deny me entry into my own home pursuant to the National Land Code, 1965. My ex-wife completely disregarded my objections claiming that she has a "court order". I asked for proof that the items she seized were indeed "personal items" but again she brushed me aside claiming that she purportedly paid for them.

No "court order" can go against the law. This was a BIG mistake.

Naturally, after the event, I lodged a police report.

As I was clear that the Ex-Parte Court Order is no longer enforcable, the next day I came over with a grinder, cut the locks and regained entry into the house. The house was in a complete mess. Upon checking, I also found personal items missing.

As a layman, I knew that the Ex-Parte Court Order cannot be enforced. Why on earth didn't the lawyer see this? It is not about setting aside or cancelling the wretched court order. It is plain simple that it cannot be enforced due to my ex-wife's failure (well her lawyer's failure to be exact) to comply with certain provisions of the law.

Looking back, their motives are clear.

1. The lawyer, who apparently HAS NOT been granted a Sijil Amalan Guaman Syarie Negeri Selangor, therefore has no authority or qualification to act as a syariah lawyer in the State of Selangor, may have completely forgotten about the 14-day requirement to file in the "kes induk". She may have panicked after learning that I had done so and probably realised that the Ex-Parte Court Order's validity is in doubt. In order to avoid embarassment, she may have advised my ex-wife to wrongfully enforce the Ex-Parte Court Order TWO DAYS after being notified of the filing of the "kes induk", to enfoce the said order during the weekend so that I may not get proper legal advise and/or assistance and before I had the chance to obtain confirmation from the Syariah Courts that the said order can no longer be enforced. The lawyer may have also taken a gamble that after the event, I would not file in a reivew at the Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Selangor and that the Royal Malaysian Police would not take action.
2. To inflict as much damage and distress to me 6 DAYS before Hari Raya Aidil Fitri.
3. To provoke me in hope that I would react physically and/or violently.

On 9 September 2010, my lawyers filed in a judicial review at the Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Selangor. I also filed in a complaint at the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board over the actions of the lawyer. The rest is history.

Wali Hakim Mystery solved!

I received a call from my officemate this afternoon informing me that a process server (i.e. a person tasked to serve court documents) was at the office to deliver some documents to me. The process server was from the legal firm that has been representing my ex-wife in all her syariah cases (both in the State of Selangor and wronfully in Kuala Lumpur). Apparently it was a "Saman Mahkamah PJ" form my ex-wife.

The process server insisted that the documents are to be served to me personally. As I was not there, he said that he will return the next day.

Once again, I was rather stumped. Mahkamah PJ? My colleague could not tell me whether it was Mahkamah Syariah or Mahkamah Sivil. What on earth is she trying to do now?

The only clue I had was the fact that it was a "Saman Mahkamah PJ". So a simple call to the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya confirmed as expected (and feared) that she filed in an application to "faraqkan" my previous marriage with her. The court officials were also dumbfounded after learning that we were already divorced!

I think her motives are clear. It appears that she is willing to put to question the status of my children simply to gain custody. Why? Why subject the children to such psychological trauma and/or to let the children live with such a stigma simply to cover up her infidelity? Why put herself first before the children? Doesn't she have the slightest of care or concern for her own children's future?

I shall restrain myself from making any further comments on her. For now, I am still in a state of shock.

The Wali Hakim Mystery

Sometime in mid-May 2010, a partner from the syariah legal firm that represents me reported that he bumped into my ex-wife and her boyfriend in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court building. At first, we thought nothing of it. Afterall, we were informed that they have been asked to appear before the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya on 24 June 2010 to be charged for khalwat. Perhaps she went there to discuss the case with her syariah lawyer(s).

Oddly, the same partner once again reported to us that he saw my ex-wife in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court building on 26 May 2010. The partner checked with the court registrar and found out that my ex-wife did have a case in Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Kuala Lumpur that day. A Syariah Court proceeding in Kuala Lumpur?

All Islamic family related matters for residents as well as those living in the State of Selangor are governed under the Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003. This is clearly stated in Section 4 of the said enactment. Similarly, Section 4 of Akta Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984 states that the act only applies to those resident as well as those living in the Federal Territories.

My ex-wife is a resident of the State of Selangor and has affirmed that she lives in the State of Selangor in all her syariah court proceedings against me. So what on earth was she doing in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts?

After some investigative work, we found out that she made an application for "Penentuan Wali" for her planned marriage with her boyfriend. In her application, she wrongfully affirmed and misrepresented to the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Kuala Lumpur that she was living in Kuala Lumpur. Making false statements in the Syariah Courts in Kuala Lumpur is an offence under Section 30 of Akta Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984. If convicted may be fined not more than RM3,000 or 2 years imprisonment or both.

What was she up to? Firstly, why make the application in Kuala Lumpur? Secondly, why the "Penentuan Wali" application?

After giving it some thought, it is clear to us that my ex-wife wanted to conceal her proposed marriage. As our syariah court proceedings are in the State of Selangor, she had assumed that I would only check in the Selangor Syariah Courts for any other cases that she may have filed. As discussed in my previous post, her rights to child custody will be affected if she remarried. This was probably the main reason why she tried to conceal her proposed marriage.

As for the "Penentuan Wali", my guess at that time is that her father did not consent to the marriage and refused to be her "wali". However, based on her application, she claims that her parents were legally married in the Philippines in 1967 but have no documents to prove this. After migrating to Sabah, and after her birth in 1973, her parents still did not have any documentary proof of their marriage. It is for this reason that they had to "bernikah" again in 1975. As the only documentary proof of her parents marriage is after the date of her birth, she probably wanted to use a "Wali Hakim" to solemnise her proposed marriage so that there will be no ambiguity whatsoever to the validity of her marriage.

I find this rather strange. She didn't raise this issue when we got married. Why raise it now?

We later found out that on 26 May 2010, the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Kuala Lumpur decided as follows

1. Her application for "Penentuan wali" was rejected
2. The court considered her parents' marriage valid
3. Her father is to be her "wali" for her proposed marriage

Pursuant to checks made at the registrar of marriages at Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan ("JAWI"), it is confirmed that they subsequently got married on 29 May 2010, with her father acting as her "wali".

I was rather annoyed that she tried to conceal her marriage in order to prejudice my child custody claim.

I then lodged a complaint at JAWI sometime in July 2010. In March 2011, JAWI informed me that the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts had reported that

1. My ex-wife had filed the "Penentuan Wali" application on 21 May 2010
2. The hearing was on 26 May 2010 where her application was rejected and the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Kuala Lumpur had ruled that her father is to be her "Wali"
3. My ex-wife and her boyfriend got married in Masjid Wilayah, Kuala Lumpur on 29 May 2010. Her father was her "Wali"
4. On 7 June 2010, she appealed against the decision of the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Kuala Lumpur
5. On 30 June 2010, she filed in a judicial review of the decision.
6. On 5 July 2010, she pulled back her appeal
7. On 10 November 2010, the Syariah Courts ruled that her marriage on 29 May 2010 was invalid and my ex-wife and her husband/boyfriend is to "difaraqkan" or separated.

I subsequently checked with the marriage registrar at JAWI and I was informed that my ex-wife and her boyfriend remarried on the same day (10 November 2010) using a "Wali Hakim".

So the BIG question is, why appeal against the 26 May 2010 court's decision? Since the court had ruled that her father should be her "Wali" and she subsequently got married using her father as her "Wali", then why on earth appeal against the decision after benefiting from it??? What is she up to? Why is she so adamant to use a "Wali Hakim"?

As far as I am aware, "Wali Hakims" are used for children born out of wedlock or in circumstances where the "Wali" cannot be found. To say that her father cannot be found doesn't make sense as he was the one who became her "Wali" on 29 May 2010. Or did he not?

So what was the basis of her application for judicial review that resulted in her and her husband/boyfriend had to be "difaraqkan"? When a marriage is subsequently found to be invalid, the couple are ordered to separate or "difaraqkan". In such circumstances,

1. The couple may remarry;
2. Any children born as a result of the marriage are NOT "anak luar nikah" or NOT "anak tak sah taraf". Such children are known as "anak wati syubhah";
3. The wife (or ex-wife as the case may be) will still be entitled to matrimonial assets

Was her intention to use "Wali Hakim" an attempt to invalidate my marriage with her? Is her intention then to declare that my children are also "anak tak sah taraf" therefore custody should automatically go to her? If such is her grand plan, then she is truly mistaken. In such circumstances, my children will be deemed "anak wati syubhah".

"Anak wati syubhah's" "nasab" will still go to me. It means that they can still carry my name (i.e. "Bin" or "Binti" me), I can still be my daughter's "Wali" and they can inherit my estate. There will be no effect whatsoever on custody.

So the big question is... are her lawyers (4 of them) aware of this? Surely they should! Out of 4, one should know.

I am still stumped. What's their grand plan? The "Wali Hakim" application still remains a mystery to me.