AK v NZB [2020] 2 ShLR 1
Syariah High Court (Selangor) Custody of Children |
|
Facts of the case |
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into marriage on 2 February 2012 and later obtained a divorce by fasakh at the Syariah Lower Court of Gombak Timur on 13 March 2019. 2. Throughout their entire marriage, they were fortunate to have a child named ASAK, hereinafter referred to as the “Child”. During the fasakh proceeding, the Child was below the age of mumayyiz, exactly six years old. The Plaintiff then filed a hadhanah claim ie for joint custody of the Child. 3. On 2 October 2019, the Plaintiff’s Syarie lawyer submitted a notice of withdrawal as Syarie lawyer, citing the Plaintiff’s non-compliance as the reason for such withdrawal. Eventually, the Plaintiff was absent from all subsequent legal procedures following the mention on 2 October 2019. The pleadings were completed, and the trial continued with the Defendant’s testimony due to the Plaintiff’s absence in Court. As a result, the case has been scheduled for a decision. 4. The hadhanah claim rests mainly on the provisions specified in Section 82 of the Islamic Family Law (Selangor) Enactment 2003 (Enactment No. 2 of 2003). Nevertheless, its suitability depends on the specific conditions and the child’s age. Upon reaching the age of mumayyiz, which is seven years for boys (extendable to 9 years with a hadinah application) and nine years for girls (extendable to 11 years with a hadinah application), the applicable relevant legal provision is Section 85(2) of the Islamic Family Law Enactment (State of Selangor) 2003, instead of Section 82 of the (Enactment No. 2 of 2003). In this case, as the Child is still below the age of legal discernment, specifically at the age of six, the Court applied Section 82 of (Enactment No. 2 of 2003) to make its decision. |
Issue | 1. Whether the Defendant is disqualified as “hadinah”?
2. Whether the Plaintiff should be granted the visitation right by the Court? |
Ratios | 1. Whether the Defendant is disqualified as “hadinah”?
(a) In this instance, the Court cited page 9 of the book Al Mufassal fi Ahkam Al-Mar’ah Wa Al-Muslim, which contains the following:
(b) The circumstance of this custodial right is also stipulated in section 82(1) (Enactment No. 2 of 2000) and is read in conjunction with section 85(1) of (Enactment No.2 of 2000), which elucidates-
(c) The Court in this case also referred to the case of Mohammad Salleh lwn Azizah [1984] 4 JH 212)-
(d) In the case of Faridah Hanim bt Omar lwn. Abd Latif Ashaari, [2006] 22 (1) JH 27 explains-
(e) In this case, the Court held that the Plaintiff was absent for the whole duration of the trial. Nevertheless, after scrutinising the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, it is shown that the Plaintiff did not dispute the Defendant’s eligibility as a custodian (Hadinah). Since no claims are challenging the Defendant’s suitability as a caretaker, the Court is convinced that the Defendant, being the mother, has never discharged her status as the Child’s guardian. (f) Furthermore, the Plaintiff is a Nigerian citizen and does not hold Malaysian citizenship. He is also not a Permanent Resident in Malaysia and instead relies on a visa to legally stay in the country, as stated by the Defendant in her defence. In light of the child’s well-being, the Court deems it fair and suitable for the kid to be placed under the custody of the Defendant (mother). 2. Whether the Plaintiff should be granted the visitation right by the Court?? (g) In order to preserve the father-child connection, the Court should grant the Plaintiff right to visit his Child in his capacity as the father. The Court cannot deny these liberty. (h) Based on the perspectives of Islamic jurists in the book “Ahkam al-Usrah Fi al-Islam” written by Sheikh Nabil ibn Kamaluddin, it is clearly mentioned that-
(i) In the case of Noraini bt hanipah lwn. Nasruddin Shah Bhaghit bin Abdullah [2007] 23 (1) JH 99-
(j) The Court, as referenced in the book “Mausuah Feqh Wa Qada’, Ahwal Syakhiyyah, Vol. 3,” written by Muhammad Azmi Al-Bakri, advised the Defendant to refrain from obstructing or prohibiting the child from having contact with the Plaintiff whenever the Plaintiff wishes to do so. In the presence of interference and disturbance, custody rights can be awarded to the opposing party. |
Decision |
1. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. 2. The Court ordered that the custody rights for a child named ASAK (Registration No.: XXXXX be granted to the Defendant (mother). 3. The Court ordered that the Plaintiff (father) be granted the visitation right without overnight stay with the Child at any reasonable time, with prior notification to the Plaintiff (mother). 4. The court ordered that any third party, including government agencies, specifically but not limited to the Immigration Department of Malaysia, Royal Malaysia Police, statutory bodies, and/or any other relevant authorities, shall cooperate in implementing the Court order. 5. Failure to comply with the order shall constitute as contempt of court and may result in imprisonment. |
Key Take Away |
1. The primary consideration for determining custody rights for children who have not reached the age of discernment is given to the biological mother, provided that she meets the standards of hadinah according to the Islamic law. 2. Islam acknowledges the unique responsibility of mothers in offering care, nourishment, and emotional assistance to their children, particularly in the early stages of life. The mother’s attachment is considered essential for the child’s emotional and psychological welfare.
|