18-4-2024 (KUALA LUMPUR) The Kuala Lumpur High Court has ruled that agreements allowing non-Muslim husbands to have mistresses are lawful. This landmark ruling effectively grants married couples the autonomy to shape their relationships and lifestyles according to their “unique needs, desires, and circumstances.”
The case in question, Divorce Petition No: WA-33-30-01/2021, centered around a Singapore-born woman identified as HLC, who had signed an agreement in August 1997 permitting her husband, PTL, to maintain a mistress throughout their marriage. Years later, in January 2021, HLC filed for divorce, alleging that the agreement was void as she had been coerced into signing it without fully comprehending the implications.
However, Justice Evrol Mariette Peters dismissed HLC’s claim, citing evidence that she had not only placed her initials on every page of the agreement but had also signed it in the presence of several witnesses. The judge’s ruling asserted that such agreements held statutory recognition under Section 56 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.
In October 2020, HLC had moved out of the family home with her five children – three sons aged 26, 25, and 18, and two daughters aged 23 and 21 – relocating to Plaza Berjaya, a property owned by PTL and his business partner. Citing her husband’s infidelity and unreasonable behavior, HLC initiated divorce proceedings, seeking maintenance for herself and two of her children, an equal division of the couple’s matrimonial assets, and damages from a co-respondent named GEN, whom she accused of committing adultery with her husband, leading to the breakdown of their marriage.
While the High Court upheld the legality of the agreement allowing PTL to have a mistress, Justice Peters nevertheless granted the divorce and ordered PTL to pay RM10,000 (S$2,828.84) in spousal maintenance and RM6,000 (S$1706) in child maintenance. The judge also directed the division of the couple’s shared assets, including immovable properties, vehicles, cash, and company shares. However, HLC’s claim for damages from GEN was rejected due to a lack of conclusive evidence proving adultery.
