A man’s remarriage and financial responsibility in his new family does not give him the right to stop or reduce financial support to his first wife, the Supreme Court ruled.
Judge Evrol Mariette Peters said that although remarriage can be a change of circumstances, determining whether it is necessary to support a change in the conditions governing the care of the ex-spouse requires a delicate examination especially. Peters said the entry of the ex-husband, who was not named as PAN, into the new marriage did not change his financial obligations under the original alimony agreement.
These services depend on the financial needs and the situation of both parties at the time the system is agreed (alimony), the judge said in rejecting PAN’s request for a change of system. Peters said the reason for these conditions is to ensure that the ex-wife, identified as NAN, who may have been financially dependent during the marriage, will continue to receive the necessary support.
This assessment is still important regardless of PAN’s new marriage status, he said in a 21-page judgment that was made public on July 28. The facts of the case revealed that PAN and his ex-wife NAN were legally separated in 2000, with the husband agreeing to pay his wife RM5,000 per month as alimony.
The couple divorced in 2015, and PAN agreed to pay the same amount as alimony. In 2017, he tried to change the law to reduce his salary to RM2,500. This request was denied. Last year, PAN went back to court to seek a modification of the sentence, this time to RM1,000 per month, citing among other factors his age of 78, his declining health and the need to support himself of his new family. which includes funding his daughter’s education abroad.
The daughter, now 22, was born from her relationship with her current wife when she was still married to NAN. PAN’s lawyers argued that he should use his money to pay for his daughter’s education in Australia, which he said costs him RM10,000 a month.
Peters said courts generally do not consider a voluntary change in financial status as a basis for changing the leave schedule. The judge said that PAN’s decision to send her daughter abroad, even though she could have chosen a cheaper local education, did not cause an unexpected or unexpected change in her financial situation. .
“If PAN had refused to “cut his clothes according to his clothes,” it would have been wrong that NAN was what PAN did. The court must ensure that the alimony condition is respected, which is designed to ensure the financial stability of NAN, if there is a major and unfavorable change in the situation, he added.
Peters said PAN’s ability to withdraw RM10,000 per month to support his daughter abroad has undermined the credibility and veracity of his statement. He said his income has decreased and he is unable to meet his financial obligations with his ex-wife.
The court cannot support PAN in remarrying and starting a new family, the judge said. However, while this is PAN’s mandate, Peters said he is not advocating cutting funding for NAN immediately.
Therefore, carrying PAN amount to support his daughter’s studies abroad cannot be a material change that supports the change of monthly spousal support status, he added.
