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.