Tutorial 2: Domicile v resident

1. Discuss the concept of domicile and its importance in family law in Malaysia. Support your
answer with reference to the provisions of the Statute(s) and decided cases.

2. Tiger, domiciled in India, came to Malaysia in 1990. He obtained employment and worked in
Jagesh Sdn Bhd, a private sector company, as an executive officer. In 1995, he went on leave
for about a year in India and during that period, he married Kamala. He returned together with
Kamala to Malaysia and continued working in Jagesh Sdn Bhd. They stayed together as
husband and wife and had two children, Gina and Mohan. Gina and Mohan had never visited
India and studied in a primary school at Kuala Lumpur. Kamala is an extremely strong Hindu
devotee and Tiger is the opposite. He refused to participate in the religious ceremonies and
very soon Kamala became a nuisance to him. Kamala frequently returned to her parents’ home
in India to get moral support from them.

a) Tiger being disappointed with his wife, wants to file a petition for divorce I the High Court
of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, decide whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Domicile in M’sia (choice), matrimonial (Udny v Udny; SAL v SEB; Radwan v Radwan).
CONCLUSION: HC has jurisdiction to hear the petition of divorce from Tiger

b) Would your answer be different if Tiger had set up his own company in India during his
stay in India back in 1995?

Different, HC no jurisdiction. Melvin Lee Campbell v Amy anak Edward Sumek

c) Would your answer be different, if it was Kamala who petitioned for the divorce?

Different, HC has jurisdiction. Ang Geck Choo v Wong Tiew Tong/Re Beaument

Matrimonial domicile, Fox v Stirk & Anor

If no, use choice to suspend dependence. Cuz kamala frequently went back to India, hence
showing that she wants to stay in India. Hence, choice > dependence and HC no jurisdiction