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.