Issues: Whether the husband petitioner was domiciled in Malaysia at the time of presentation of

the petition.

Facts of the Case:

The matrimonial relationship between both petitioner has broken down. They both has
apply joint petition for divorce under section 52 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce)
Act 1976. Which is, dissolution by mutual consent. However according to the power
conferred by the LRA the court has only jurisdiction to those whom is a domicile in
Malaysia. Meanwhile in this case, the husband domicile is questionable. According to
Section 48(1) of the 1976 Act provides, inter alia, that nothing in that Act shall authorize
the court to make any decree of divorce except "(c) where the domicile of the parties to
the marriage at the time when the petition is presented is in Malaysia". The husband has
indication of abandoned his domicile of origin and acquired a domicile of choice in
Malaysia at the relevant time. the husband petitioner had married a native of this state and
he had set up the matrimonial home of his family here, where he purchases his parent in-
law house in Kampong Kakai in Kerian, which he had resided for a long period of time.
The husband petitioner also arranged for the issue of the marriage to reside and be
educated here also he had expressed his intention to be converted to the religion of Islam
and had taken steps to have that intention materialized and also that he had taken steps to
explore the possibility of investing in Malaysia
Court Held:
Husband petitioner is not convincing for his joint petition of his domicile in Malaysia is
merely exploratory nature towards the possibility of business. Furthermore, his factors of
residence have gone when his matrimonial relationship has been nullifying by their application
of mutual divorce by section 52 of LRA. Thus petitioner has not fulfilled the two essential
element of domicile.