Introduction
In IVA v ROM & Anor [2025] MLJU 3240, the High Court reaffirmed key principles of truth, fairness, and balance within the family justice system. The case stands out not for sensational allegations, but for the Court’s careful dissection of evidence, integrity in process, and insistence on the child’s right to both parents.
Presided over by Justice Evrol Mariette Peters, this decision underscores that justice in matrimonial disputes is not a matter of gender, but of conduct and credibility. It reminds litigants that claims of adultery and abuse must be supported by cogent proof, and that emotional manipulation, particularly of children, will not go unnoticed by the Court.
More importantly, the judgment delivers a strong message on parental alienation, highlighting the judiciary’s readiness to intervene where one parent’s actions erode the bond between a child and the other parent. For fathers, it represents a meaningful affirmation that their role is not secondary, it is equal, essential, and protected by law.
Factual Background
This matter arose from divorce proceedings initiated by the Petitioner (wife) against the Respondent (husband), with claims against a Co-Respondent for alleged adultery. The couple had married in 2003 and had two daughters born in 2004 and 2010. The marriage broke down following allegations of infidelity, verbal abuse, and emotional distress, prompting the Petitioner to lodge a police report and obtain an Interim Protection Order (IPO), which led to the husband vacating the matrimonial home in 2021. In 2023, the Petitioner filed a petition for divorce, claiming damages for adultery, sole custody, maintenance, and division of matrimonial property. The husband filed a cross-petition seeking joint guardianship and a fair division of assets.
Key Issues for Determination
1. Whether the Respondent had committed adultery with the Co-Respondent, thereby entitling the Petitioner to damages under section 58(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.
2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to spousal maintenance under sections 77 and 78 of the LRA.
3. Whether the Petitioner should be granted sole guardianship and custody of the children, or if joint guardianship was more appropriate.
4. How the matrimonial assets were to be divided between the parties, including the question of financial disclosure and concealment.
Court’s Findings on the Issues
Adultery Allegations and Claim for Damages
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent was engaged in an adulterous relationship with the Co-Respondent and sought damages. She relied on a police report, unproduced WhatsApp messages, the purchase of a sex device allegedly for the Co-Respondent, and a reference to a previous affair in 2010 with another individual.
The Court held that the Petitioner had failed to establish adultery to the requisite standard of proof. The WhatsApp messages were not produced in court. The purchase of a pleasure device did not prove sexual intercourse. The Court further held that the previous affair in 2010 could not be admitted as similar-fact evidence, as it bore insufficient connection to the current allegation. It ruled that adultery must be proven by cogent evidence and cannot rest on mere suspicion or implication.
As such, the Court dismissed the claim for adultery and refused to award damages.
Spousal Maintenance
The Petitioner sought maintenance despite being a qualified lawyer with her own practice. She argued she was the main breadwinner yet simultaneously claimed she was in need of support. The Court found her position internally inconsistent.
It was further found that the Respondent had not abandoned the family but had been effectively ejected from the matrimonial home following the IPO and the Petitioner’s actions. In light of the Petitioner’s capacity to earn and her conduct, the Court concluded she was not entitled to maintenance.
Guardianship, Custody and Parental Alienation
The Petitioner sought sole custody and guardianship. The Court granted her sole custody, care and control, but ordered joint guardianship between both parents. Access to the Respondent was structured for Saturdays, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
One of the most significant aspects of this case lies in the Court’s handling of the issue of parental alienation. The High Court took cognizance of how the Petitioner’s conduct, both during and after the breakdown of the marriage, had shaped the children’s views of their father. The judgment records that the Petitioner had chosen to present emotionally charged letters penned by the children to the Court, and she had also taken active steps to call one of the daughters as a witness to support her case. These letters, however, raised concerns for the Court as they were “not a passive outcome of the separation but was actively engineered through several calculated actions”, reflecting not only mature legal concepts but also language and sentiment that appeared coached or influenced.
While the Court did not use the term “parental alienation” in a clinical sense, it made a firm finding that the Petitioner had contributed to the children’s deteriorating relationship with the Respondent. The Court noted that the Petitioner had consistently advanced a narrative of abandonment and abuse, which the children had, in turn, adopted. This raised serious judicial concern, particularly as the evidence before the Court did not support such claims against the Respondent. On the contrary, the Court was satisfied that the Respondent had not been violent, had continued providing for the family financially, and had not voluntarily abandoned the children, but had been excluded from the household by the Petitioner following the IPO.
The Court was especially troubled by the Petitioner’s readiness to involve the children in the litigation. Calling the eldest child to testify against a parent in matrimonial proceedings was viewed as highly inappropriate. The Court found that this would only serve to deepen the emotional entrenchment and antagonism between parent and child, with long-term consequences. In clear terms, the Court found that alienating the Children from their father was contrary to their best interests. Never use Children as pawns in matrimonial disputes.
Recognizing the psychological and emotional impact of such alienation, the Court proceeded to take remedial measures. Although the Petitioner was granted sole custody, the Court made a specific order for joint guardianship. More notably, the Court directed the Petitioner to take all necessary steps to repair the relationship between the Respondent and the children. This included facilitating access and refraining from conduct that would further alienate the children from their father.
This segment of the judgment is groundbreaking in its clarity and courage. Without vilifying the Petitioner, the Court upheld the principle that both parents have a vital and irreplaceable role in a child’s life. Where that bond is unjustifiably severed or undermined, the Court will not remain silent. It will intervene, not just to protect the rights of the estranged parent, but to vindicate the emotional and developmental rights of the child.
For fathers facing similar alienation, this case provides hope. It confirms that Malaysian courts are willing to confront these difficult emotional dynamics and to make orders that promote healing, inclusion, and long-term welfare, not just custody labels. The decision also underscores the careful, fact-sensitive approach the Court must take when allegations are made, ensuring that outcomes are grounded in reality and serve the child’s best interests in the truest sense.
Division of Matrimonial Assets
The matrimonial assets in dispute included the jointly owned home, two properties (Makati and Telok Gong) registered in the Petitioner’s name, and a business, the Respondent’s Clinic which was formerly operated by the Respondent himself prior to the sale of which he was retained as an employee.
The Court held that the Makati and Telok Gong properties, although registered solely in the wife’s name, were matrimonial assets because they were acquired during the marriage and used for family benefit. The Respondent agreed to relinquish his claims over some properties in exchange for a larger share of the matrimonial home.
The business had been sold prior to trial, and its proceeds used for family living. The Court refused the Petitioner’s claim for a share in the business, finding that she had attempted to conceal certain properties. Her conduct was described as financial infidelity.
The matrimonial home was ordered to be sold, with proceeds divided equally, or for one party to buy out the other’s share.
Significance of the Judgment
This case sets an important precedent in Malaysian family law on multiple fronts. Firstly, it underscores that serious allegations such as adultery must be substantiated with strong, cogent evidence. For fathers wrongly accused, this offers protection and redress against opportunistic or unsubstantiated claims.
Secondly, the Court affirmed that maintenance is not a gender-based entitlement. A wife with means, capacity, and conflicting assertions will not be awarded support simply by virtue of marriage. This is a crucial shift away from outdated assumptions and towards a fact-sensitive approach.
Thirdly, the findings on guardianship and parental alienation are pivotal. The Court’s recognition and condemnation of alienating behavior protects fathers from being unfairly erased from their children’s lives. Joint guardianship remains the norm, and mothers who attempt to destroy the father-child bond do so at their peril. The Court’s directives to facilitate reunification serve as a powerful reminder that custody battles must prioritize
children’s emotional wellbeing and their right to have both parents involved.
Finally, the Court’s approach to asset division reflects fairness, transparency, and scrutiny of conduct. Even assets held solely by one party may be subject to division if acquired during the marriage. Moreover, concealment and non-disclosure will attract judicial censure.
Conclusion
IVA v ROM & Anor [2025] MLJU 3240 stands as a significant decision reaffirming the equal standing of fathers in divorce proceedings. It underscores the necessity of credible evidence, honesty in financial disclosure, and the vital importance of safeguarding children’s rights to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents. The case serves as a strong precedent against unfounded allegations and offers valuable guidance for future matters involving similar issues.
This article is prepared by Vhimall Murugesan