Maintenance Obligations Between Spouses

In the past, women were often confined to household responsibilities, with their contributions limited to managing the home and caring for the family. However, this traditional division of roles has evolved considerably. Today, women are active participants in the workforce, contributing financially and professionally at levels equal to their spouses.

Given these societal shifts, the idea of an automatic entitlement to spousal maintenance is outdated. The law now considers a range of factors, including the financial independence and capabilities of both parties, before determining maintenance.

In the case of YAY v WHO & Anor [2023], the court emphasized that a generation has passed since the Act was introduced, and women are no longer confined to household duties. Therefore, any claim for maintenance must be carefully assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case, rather than assumed as a right.

For the Court to exercise its discretion to order maintenance, the Court shall have regard to the degree of responsiblity each party bears for the breakdown of the marriage, as well as the means and needs of the parties, as stipulated under Section 78 of the LRA –

”In determining the amount of any maintenance to be paid by a man to his wife or former wife or by a woman to her husband or former husband, the court shall base its assessment primarily on the means and needs of the parties, regardless of the proportion such maintenance bears to the income of the husband or wife as the case may be, but shall have regard to the degree of responsibility which the court apportions to each party for the breakdown of the marriage.”

In simpler terms, before any decision on maintenance is made, the law requires the court to determine who was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage and how much responsibility each party bears.

Having regard the parties’ degree of responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage, the Court will then evaluate the means and needs of both parties, taking into account various factors, including :-
(a) the duration of the marriage ;
(b) whether there are any children of the marriage, the age of the parties ;
(c) whether the husband had financially supported the wife during the subsistence of the marriage ;
(d) income, earning capacity, property, or financial resources that each party presently possesses or is likely to possess in the foreseeable future ;
(e) financial needs, obligations, and responsibilities that each party currently or is likely to have in the foreseeable future ;
(f) standard of living enjoyed by the family prior to the breakdown of the marriage ;
(h) age of each party ;
(i) any existing health, physical, or mental disability of the parties ;
(j) respective contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family ; and
(k) whether the divorce would have affected the husband’s position financially.

In Choong Yee Fong v Ooi Seng Keat & Anor [2006] 1 MLJ 791, the court found that the petitioner, a 41-year-old able-bodied wife, who was earning a salary of RM1,800 per month until her alleged unemployment in 2001, was capable of supporting herself. Despite claiming financial hardship after her alleged unemployemtn in 2001, she showed no effort to improve her situation and instead engaged in excessive spending. The court determined that she had the ability to be self-sufficient and therefore dismissed her claim for maintenance.

In YAY v WHO (NAN, co-respondent) [2023] MLJU 73, the Court dismissed the wife’s claim for spousal maintenance, noting that she was 38 years old, able-bodied, well-educated, and earning a monthly salary between RM7,000 and RM20,000 as a banker. The Court found that she had the capacity to earn even more and possessed the necessary knowledge and experience to support herself.

In Glaret Shirley a/p Sinnapan v Sivasankar a/l Kunchiraman [2022] MLJU 2706, the Court found that the husband had committed adultery and ordered him to pay spousal maintenance. However, the amount was reduced to RM2,000-00 per month because the wife was employed as a lecturer and had the means of earning her own income.

Lastly, it is worthwhile to note that the law provides the Court with discretion to order a woman to pay maintenance to her husband or former husband if he is incapacitated, wholly or partially, from earning a livelihood due to mental or physical injury or ill-health, and if the Court is satisfied that, considering her means, it is reasonable to do so, as outlined in Section 77(2) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act.

The duty to pay spousal maintenance shall expire upon the death of the spouse in whose favor the order is made, unless the order specifies a shorter period or has been rescinded. Additionally, the right to receive maintenance from their former spouse under any court order shall cease upon their remarriage or if they live in adultery with another person.

If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact our lawyer that you usually deal with.

This article is written by 

Gwen Yeap Siew Fen
Partners, Low & Partners

Jareen Lee Hoay Yin
Principal Associate, Low & Partners