PUTRAJAYA: The High Court has no authority to hear disputes involving matrimonial assets of non-Muslim couples after their divorce is made absolute.

The Federal Court, in a landmark ruling yesterday, said the civil court would have the jurisdiction to grant relief sought by a party only if Parliament made amendments to provisions in the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

This unanimous ruling has now clarified the law as to whether a spouse can proceed to claim ancillary relief after their marriage dissolution had been finalised.

The court comprising Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, Datuk Ariffin Zakaria and Datuk Hashim Yusoff had heard the appeal earlier this year.

Ariffin, who delivered the judgment, said it was a cardinal principle of law that the court could not confer jurisdiction on itself when none existed.
He said this in allowing the appeal of ex-planter S. Manokaram against the decision of the Court of Appeal two years ago that an application for division of property by his former wife Ranjid Kaur could be heard despite their divorce being made absolute.

He said this case demonstrated the harsh result arising from provisions in the act, which were "clear and explicit", and the court could only interpret the statute.

Ariffin said it was entirely a matter within the power of the legislature to remedy the defects.

"It is not for the courts to usurp the function of the legislature by straining the meaning of the clear terms of the law and seeking to evade the consequence which may ensue."

Ariffin said that in Singapore, which faced a similar problem, Parliament had enacted a new provision in the Women's Charter.

He said in this case, the court's jurisdiction to order division of matrimonial assets was limited to the time of granting a decree of divorce and not at a later stage.

"As the present application was made subsequent to the decree absolute, I hold that the court has no jurisdiction to grant such an order."

Manokaram and Ranjid, who were married in 1980, filed a divorce petition and on Aug 3,1999, a decree nisi (a provisional decree of divorce which becomes absolute after a specified interval) was granted by a High Court in Kuala Lumpur to dissolve their marriage. The decree nisi became absolute on April 5, 2001.

The claim for ancillary relief was fixed for hearing on Sept 14, 2000, but the High Court struck it out as Ranjid, a retired civil servant, and her lawyer were not present on that day.

Ranjid's counsel then filed an application in the High Court for property division but it was dismissed on grounds that leave was not obtained.

Her counsel then filed an application on May 11, 2001, to obtain leave which was granted by the court.

However, Manokaram appealed against this to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal and he took his case to the Federal Court.

Lawyers V. Vijaya Segaran and Hemalatha Parasa Ramulu appeared for Manokaram while Ranjid was represented by Harpal Singh Grewal and Jasvinjit Singh.