Tutorial 1

1. Discuss the following cases:

(a) DOROTHY YEE YENG NAM V LEE FAH KOOI [956] MLJ 257
In this case the parties were married in Penang in accordance with the provisions
of the Straits Settlements Christian Marriage Ordinance, 1940 and thereafter set up their
matrimonial home and lived in Perak. It appeared on the facts that since October 1950 the
respondent had deserted the petitioner without cause. The petitioner applied for dissolution
of the marriage.

The question was considered as to whether the Court had power to give the
petitioner the decree because of *section 4(1)(a) of the Divorce Ordinance, 1952 which
reads: "Nothing herein shall authorize the Court to make any decree of dissolution of
marriage except — (a) where the marriage between the parties was contracted under a law
providing that or in contemplation of which marriage is monogamous…*

Held:
A Chinese domiciled in Perak can validly enter into a monogamous form of marriage.
although the Christian Marriage Ordinance, 1940 does not expressly provide that a
marriage under it is monogamous, it is a law enabling the parties to enter into a marriage
which they contemplate or intend shall be monogamous. Therefore, a Chinese married
under that Ordinance can apply for dissolution of marriage under the Divorce Ordinance,
1952.

(b) CHU GEOK KEOW V CHONG MENG SZE [1961] MLJ 10

The requirement for a valid marriage with a (secondary wife) under the Chinese customary
laws was simply a consensual marriage where the ceremony and formalities were not
necessary but evidentiary only. Nonetheless, in this case, neither the photography nor the
adoption children were evidentiary to prove the marriage was valid thus it was held that no
mutual consent was given to the marriage and the appellant was not the secondary wife.

(c) RE DING DO CA [1966] 2 MLJ 220

The first marriage was solemnized under the Christian Marriage Enactment while the
second marriage was solemnized under the Chinese customary law where there was
argument on the validity of the second marriage as the Christian Marriage Enactment
prohibited polygamous marriage.

(d) LAM WAI HWA V TOH YEE SUM [1981] 2 MLJ 131
This was an appeal from the decision of the Federal Court reported at [1981] M.L.J. 139.
The deceased a Chinese had married the first appellant according to Chinese custom.
Subsequently the deceased married the first respondent according to Buddhist rites and the
 marriage was registered under the Registration of Marriage Enactment (F.M.S. Cap. 111).
In the registered particulars of the marriage, it was stated in effect that the husband had no
other wife living. The deceased died on December 22, 1960. After his death, the respondent
received regular monthly payments of $300, increased to $700 from 1972 onwards. The
payments ceased in 1975. When the payments ceased, the first respondent took legal advice
and as a result she and the other respondents instituted proceedings against the appellants
as administrators of the estate of the deceased. The relief sought included declarations that
the first respondent and the other respondents were respectively the lawful widow and the
lawful issue of the deceased and entitled to share in his estate. When the case come before
the High Court, there were two issues; (a) whether the marriage between the deceased and
the first respondent was valid, the principal argument against the validity being that the
existence of the earlier marriage between the deceased and the first appellant had not been
disclosed; (b) whether the respondent's claim was time barred under the provisions of the
Limitation Ordinance, 1953. Sufflan L.P. sitting as a High Court judge, decided both issues
in favour of the respondents and granted the declarations sought. The appeal to the Federal
Court was dismissed and the appellants appealed.

(e) YEAP LEONG HUAT V YEAP LEONG SOON [1989] 3 MLJ 157
This was an appeal by Plaintiff against the decision of the learned judge declaring that
Defendant were the children of X by his principal wife Y and as such they were entitled to
share in the residuary income of the estate of Z, their deceased grandfather. P1 was the son
of X by an earlier marriage while P2–P4 were the other sons of X by his marriage to K. P1
contended that neither Y nor K was the principal wife of X and as such D and P2–P4 were
not entitled to share in the residuary estate of Z. For P2–P4, it was contended that Y was
not the principal wife as their mother, K, was the principal wife of X. The learned judge
found that Y stayed in the family house with X after the marriage which was conducted
according to Chinese rites and custom. On the other hand, K had never moved in to live in
the family house where X resided. In his will, Z had stated clearly that K was a secondary
wife. Having regard to the evidence and opinions of experts, the learned judge held that Y
was the principal wife of X and that her sons, D, were entitled to share the residuary estate
under the will of Z, the testator.

(f) PARAMESWARI V AYADURAI [1959] MLJ 195

The marriage was solemnized according to the customs of the Ceylon Tamil Hindu custom
and there were expert witness and the priest who had performed the marriage ceremony
which these were recognized as a valid marriage. The marriage in this case was in the
nature of monogamous therefore the petitioner was entitled to dissolve the marriage due to
the respondent later married another woman.
2. Wong Ai Nie married to Tan Cheng Hui according to Chinese rites in 1977. They had 2
daughters. In 1980 Tan Cheng Hui married Chua Mui Bee under the Christian Marriage
Ordinance. Chua Mui Bee was not aware that Tan Cheng Hui had another wife. Wong Ai
Nee brought an action to declare the 2nd marriage between Tan Cheng Hui and Chua Mui
Bee was invalid. Advise the parties.

Issue: Whether the marriage between Tan Cheng Hui and Chua Mui Bee was valid.

Law: Christian Marriage Ordinance 1956

Application: Tan Cheng Hui and Chua Mui Bee was marriage under Christian Marriage
Ordinance. Chua Mui Bee was not aware that Tan Cheng Hui had marriage with Wong Ai
Nie before the said marriage. Hence, the marriage between Tan Cheng Hui and Chua Mui
Bee was invalid as the Christian Marriage Ordinance prohibited polygamous marriages.

Conclusion: The marriage between Tan Cheng Hui and Chua Mui Bee was invalid