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.