Page 1

Malayan Law Journal Articles/2006/Volume 5/Parents' Obligation Towards Maintenance Of Children In Tertiary Education: An Overview Of The Islamic Law And Family Laws In Malaysia In Comparision With Uk [2006] 5 MLJ cvi Malayan Law Journal Articles 2006

Parents' Obligation Towards Maintenance Of Children In Tertiary Education: An Overview Of The Islamic Law And Family Laws In Malaysia In Comparision With Uk
Nuraisyah Chua Abdullah
1

In Malaysia, the issue of responsibility of parents to maintain their children differs according to the propagation of faith of the parents. Muslim parents under the various Islamic Enactments are bound to maintain children above 18 years who are pursuing their tertiary education. Hence, if the parents are non-Muslims, the non-Muslim law applies to them, ie the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 and their obligation to maintain their children cease when the children attained the age of 18 years even if the children need monetary assistance in pursuing their tertiary education. Therefore, this paper addresses the issue of maintenance of non-Muslim children above 18 years in Malaysia in the pursuit of continuing their further education and comparison with the Islamic law and Enactments will be made. The paper also highlights the English law in comparison with the LRA. In the conclusion, the paper attempts to make recommendation towards the betterment of the existing provisions of the LRA in this area. Introduction In the early 80s, there has been no reported case on the issue of maintenance of children who has attained the age of 18 years or has exceeded the age. However, recently over the years due to the inspiration of the nation towards a k-economy, there has been increasing debates on the issue of responsibilities of parents to maintain their children who are pursuing their tertiary education and the following discussion focuses on this issue under the Islamic law, Islamic Enactments and the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Maintenance Of Muslim Children Under The Islamic Law The holy book of Islam, the Quran which is the guiding light of every Muslims clearly provides the right of children towards maintenance is the obligation of their parents2. However, the Quran and Hadith are silent as to the extent of 5 MLJ cvi at cvii obligation of parents to maintain their children. The following discussion focuses on the views of Islamic scholars on this matter. Various schools of law have different opinions concerning this matter as a result of their difficulties to identify the end of childhood. Consequently, the four Sunni schools differ on the time when such rights come to an end. Generally, they agree that such a right terminates when the child reaches a certain age, however they differ on what should be the ideal age. The Hanaf'i school of law explained that there is a clash of opinion on the matter of maintaining a child who is still studying as education is a vital basic necessity in preparing the children for the future challenge. It is compulsory for parents to provide the children with education i.e. it is the responsibility of a parents to educate their children3.

Page 2

According to the Sunni school of law, the period of minority of a male child is divided into two stages, each of which is characterized by certain features of growth and development. The first stage is from the birth of the child till he reaches its seventh year. The second stage is from the completion of seven years till the termination of minority4. The Hanbalis, who do not distinguish between boys and girls, rules that the duration of custody for a child shall run from birth till the seventh year, upon which, the child shall be given the choice of preference of parent and their choice shall be respected5. In other words, according to the Hanbali School of law, during the infant stage, the right to custody of the child belongs to the mother. After the child has attained the age of seven, the right of custody belongs to the father. However, this is subject to the welfare of the child. Hence at that age, the children have to be educated and require maintenance from the parents. They argued that there is some evidence that at the age of seven, the child has the ability to discriminate, and is able to choose either parent as the ideal person to grow up with6. According to Shafi'i school of law, basically a father is being compelled to maintain and give maintenance to his children and the wife7. Thus, maintenance is not only for the wife but also for the welfare and well being of the children. According to this school of law, the 5 MLJ cvi at cviii age of seven is not the age of puberty and to divide childhood into two periods as mentioned above may lead readers to adopt the notion that a child suddenly becomes a matured individual on completion of seven years of age. In fact, according to Shafi`i school of law, the transition of one period to another is different from one child to another. Therefore, for the well-being of the child, Shaf`i school of law rules that the mother will have the right to maintain a child during the whole period of minority up until the infant reaches the age of discretion and is assumed capable of choosing, which parent to live with8. Furthermore, the Shafi'i school of law is also of the view that if the boy chooses his mother, he shall stay with her for the night and spend the day-time with his father, who undertakes his education. The girl who opts for her mother shall live with her day and night. To be fair, lots shall be drawn between the parents if the child opts for both. If the child remains silent, the child shall stay with the mother9. As a conclusion, the Islamic jurists confined to the issue of custodian or hadanah to determine the right of maintenance of the children whereby the age of a child is a determining factor which determines which parent has the obligation to maintain in the cases of divorce. However, it is still unclear on the extent of obligation of parent/parents to maintain their children. Maintenance of Children under the Islamic Enactments The Family Law (Federal Territory) Act 1984 (IFLA) not only contain provisions on the matters of marriage and divorce but also deals with the right of maintenance of a child. The rationale of this ruling is to protect the welfare and right of the children in line with the teachings of Islam. One of the main objectives of IFLA is to protect the welfare of children in a marriage. The maintenance of children is stipulated under various provisions in the IFLA10. The IFLA provides that it shall be a duty of a man to maintain his children, whether they are in custody or the custody of any other person, either by providing them with such accommodation, clothing, food, medical attention and education as are reasonable having regard to his means and station of life or by paying the cost thereof 5 MLJ cvi at cix 11. The court has the power to order the security for maintenance of a child under IFLA12. If any person who owes the duty of maintenance failed or refused to fulfill his responsibilities, the court by an application from a person who has the locus standi, may order the person liable to pay the maintenance to secure the whole or any part of it by vesting any property in trustees upon trust to pay the maintenance or a part thereof out of

Page 3

income from the property, for the benefit of the children. Failure to comply with the order shall be punishable as contempt of Court13 Hence, the important issue which needs to be discussed is on the issue of duration of order for maintenance of a child where the IFLA provides as follows: Except --

(a) (b) (c)

where an order for maintenance of a child is expressed to be for a shorter period; or where any such order has been rescinded; or where an order has been made in favour of --

(i) (ii)

a daughter who has not been married or who is by reason of mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining herself; a son who is by reason of some mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining himself ,

the order for maintenance shall expire on the attainment of the age of eighteen years, but the court may on the application by the child or any other person extend the order for maintenance to cover such period as it thinks reasonable to enable the child to pursue further or higher education or training14 .In Zubaidah lwn Sulaiman15, the court held that the payments of maintenance will cease when the children attained the age 15 years old. However, this is due to the fact that this case was decided under the provision of the Enactment which was in force at that time, therefore the child who is already above the age of 15 years ceased to receive maintenance from the father16. The present law has increased the age limit from 15 years to 18 years. In Jinah lwn Abdul Aziz17, the party has five children ranging from six to 21 years old. At the time of the divorce, the father agreed to pay RM500 for maintenance to his children who live with their mother. However, he failed to do so, on regular basic and just gave RM900. This is due to the fact that he 5 MLJ cvi at cx is struggling in his business. The judge opined that the two of his children are not entitled for maintenance as even though one of the son is still under 18 years old, the judge considered the fact that he is working and earning salary and the his wages is enough to support himself. The court is of the view that payment of maintenance may ceased earlier in considering this fact. The other son who is already above 18 years old is not entitled to the payment of maintenance as they have attained the maximum age limit. The remaining three of his children will be receiving the same amount as had been agreed upon by his father. Although the two cases mentioned above do not concern the maintenance of children of 18 years or above who are pursuing their higher education, the provision of the IFLA18 as mentioned earlier is very clear whereby the IFLA provides the power to the court to extend the period of maintenance for the purposes of education when it is reasonable in the view of the court. Similar to the IFLA, in the Kelantan Enactment 2002, the duration of order for maintenance of a child is as follows: Except --

(a) (b) (c)

where an order for maintenance of a child is expressed to be for a shorter period; or where any such order has been rescinded; or where an order has been made in favour of

Page 4

(i) (ii)

a daughter who has not been married or who is by reason of mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining herself; a son who is by reason of some mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining himself ,

the order for maintenance shall expire on the attainment of the age of eighteen years, but the court may on the application by the child or any other person extend the order for maintenance to cover such period as it thinks reasonable to enable the child to pursue further or higher education or training19 Maintenance of Children under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act (LRA) The position of maintenance of non-Muslim children today under the LRA has not been changed ever since it was established. The principle that has been established is the duty of parents to give maintenance to their children for the basic necessity such as food, clothing, accommodation and education. 5 MLJ cvi at cxi The LRA itself provides the duty of a parent to maintain their child20 which is similar to the English Children Act 198921

The LRA provides as follows: Except where an agreement or order of court otherwise provides, it shall be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children, whether they are in his or her custody or the custody of any other person, either by providing them such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable having regard to his or her means and station in life or by paying the cost thereof22.

The simple explanation can be made from the above section is that a parent is obliged to maintain children and this basic principle of maintenance is in line with the other family law in other commonwealth countries such as Singapore and Australia23. This clearly shows that Malaysia is at par with the other commonwealth countries on the advancement of the family law. However, the LRA is silent as to whether the duty to maintain rest on the father or mother. Therefore, the following cases will be considered in order to determine this issue. The provisions of maintenance of children in Malaysia and England were illustrated in divorce cases. In the English case of Cooke v Cooke24, the wife had committed adultery. The husband separated with the wife and refused to maintain the child on the ground of adultery. In this situation, the court held that adultery is not a valid reason for the husband to refuse the maintenance of the child. In Malaysia, the obligation of a father to maintain the child is illustrated in the case of Ng Ee Loon v Tan Peng Lee25. In this case, the husband had not made any payment to their child since the child was placed under the wife's custody after they divorced. It was held that the action of non-adherence with the duty of maintenance is an offence against the law and the husband should meet his legal obligations towards the child. This is also illustrated in the case of Parkunan A/L Achulingam v Kalairasy A/P Periasamy26, which the facts is quite is similar to the earlier case. The principle of this case is maintenance of a child is a primary obligation of both parents. However, in this case the judge held that: 5 MLJ cvi at cxii

The husband has the primary obligation and the wife has the secondary obligation in maintaining a child. The term 'maintenance' used in s 77 and 92 of the LRA should be construed widely as it signifies any form of material provision that would enable the wife and children to be placed in a position to enjoy the same standard of living as they did during the existence of the marriage27

Page 5

The decisions shows that the obligations of maintenance is upon both parents but in the case of divorce it is primary duty of the father to ensure that the wife and children after a divorce enjoy the same standard of living as during the existence of marriage as in other words, before the divorce. But it is a different situation in the case of an illegitimate child where only the mother has the right of custody and is obliged to maintain the child. The putative father has no parental responsibility or whatsoever over the child28. This has been stressed out by Sir George Baker P in the English case of Paton v Pregnancy Advisory Trustee & Anor29. This case involved a dispute on the custody between the mother and putative father of the child. The same principle has been decided by Selventhiranathan JC in the Malaysian case of Tam Ley Chian v Seah Heng Lye30. In this case, both the wife and husband solemnised their marriage under the Chinese Custom. Since the marriage was not solemnised under the LRA, therefore, the child was illegitimate and there was a dispute between the mother and putative father for the custody of the child. It was held that the mother has the right and custody over the child. Referring to the decision of the case above, the Malaysian family law actually has adopted the principle of an English case law in the case of Re K, 31 where the parental responsibility is conferred on the mother of the child once the child is born regardless of the mother marital status. As a conclusion, both the provisions of family law on maintenance in Malaysia and England provide that both parents have the obligation of maintaining their child. However, as discussed above, the primary obligation to maintain a child is upon the father and in the case of divorce, the husband is still obliged to maintain the children even though the wife and children are not staying together in the same household as evident in the decisions in the above cases. Thus, regardless of the status of the child and the principle of natural responsibility on the mother as discuss above, the father is still obliged to maintain the children. 5 MLJ cvi at cxiii Extent of Children's Rights of Maintenance under the LRA in Comparison with the English Law As discussed earlier, the duty to maintain a child is an important obligation of both parents. This chapter focuses on the extent of obligation of parents under the LRA. The obligation of parents or a parent to maintain children has been expressly provided in the LRA, where any duty to maintain or orders for custody shall expire upon the attainment by the child of the age of eighteen years. The only exception of this principle is where such maintenance shall not expire if the child is suffering from physical and mental disability. The LRA provides as follows:

Except where an order for custody or maintenance of a child is expressed to be for any shorter period or where any such order has been rescinded, it shall expire on the attainment by the child of the age of eighteen years or where the child is under physical or mental disability, on the ceasing of such disability, whichever is the later32

The provision under the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is similar to the above Malaysian provision on the limitation of right of children towards maintenance, where the provision provides as follows: No financial provision order and no property adjustment order shall be made in favour of a child who has attained the age of 18 unless:

(a)

(b)

the child is, or will be, or if an order were made without complying with either or both those provisions would be, receiving instruction at an educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not he is also, or will be also, in gainful employment; or there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order33

With reference of the above provision, financial provision order is to be made under the provision of English

Page 6

Children Act 198934 and to be referred to the provision in the English Matrimonial Causes Act 197335 above because the requirements in the above provision need to be fulfilled first before an order can be made. Thus, the provision of the Matrimonial Causes Act 197336 mentioned on the similarity on the limitation of duration on maintenance, however it provides an added emphasis relating to the maintenance of children who are perusing tertiary education and children under physical and mental disability, which the Malaysian provision is silent on this matter. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the law should expend the obligation of parents to maintain children above eighteen years for 5 MLJ cvi at cxiv educational purposes and the following cases will illustrates this position. In the case of Karunairajah v Punithambigai37, the husband, after the process of divorce was ordered by the High Court to pay maintenance to his children. However he stopped the payments of maintenance for his eldest child on the ground that she had reached the age of eighteen years. After that, the wife appealed at the Court of Appeal for an order for the husband to continue the payment for their daughter in order for her to pursue her tertiary education. However in the Federal Court, the husband appeal to be relieved from the payment of maintenance to his children and the Federal Court judge allowed the appeal by the husband by relying on the provision of LRA38. In this case, the Federal Court held that the provision on maintenance under the LRA should be interpreted as it is. Hence, the court stressed that there was no legal basis to interpret the word 'disability' as financial disability. It only covers 'physical and mental disability' as provided in the exception to the provision on maintenance under the LRA. The reason behind this is that Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ explained that the court has no power to change the essence of the provision and it is the responsibility of the parliament to make such amendments. Therefore, the child's right for maintenance was dismissed39. In Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin40, the father of the children in the case has neglected over the order of the High Court to pay maintenance to his two daughters for their tertiary education. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the father's application on the ground that the father has took an oath that he will benefit his children until they obtain their first degree. The court relies on the doctrine of the law that a person can not be permitted to reprobate what he has approbated. The distinction between the case of Karunairajah v Punithambigai 41and Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin42 was that in the later case, there was an agreement made by the father to his children to maintain them until they obtained their first degree. This is the reason the court ordered maintenance to be paid by the father to the children. It can be observed that most of the judges use the literal approach in interpreting the provision. In the case of Kulasingam v Rasammah43, the wife applied for maintenance from her husband for her daughter and herself who were above 20 years old. The learned magistrate therefore, ordered that maintenance shall be paid by the father to the daughter. On appeal at the High Court, the learned judge relies on the Age of Majority Act 1971 as to the issue of whether the daughter is allowed 5 MLJ cvi at cxv to have such maintenance. The reason the learned judge relied on this matter is to show that the age of majority in Malaysia is eighteen years and above, which is in line with the essence of the provision on maintenance under the LRA44. Therefore, the child failed to claim maintenance from her father as she was above twenty years old45. Similarly, this matter as discussed in the case of Gisela Getrude Abe v Tan Wee Kiat46, where the applicant applies for a claim against the respondent for the maintenance for both of his daughters. Both of his daughters aged twenty two and eighteen respectively and were still studying. It was held that there were no moral grounds to be included in interpreting the provision.47 The learned judge justifies that moral ground can never override clear provision of the law in deciding a case. The learned judge added: Under s 95 of the LRA, the duration of a maintenance order made in favour of a child expires, in the absence of any expressed shorter period, on the child attaining the age of eighteen years. Reading this section, it is clear that the mandatory provision and that being the case, I consider that consideration of moral grounds is of no relevance whatsoever48. In considering the position of children who are suffering physical and mental disability under the exceptions

Page 7

of provision on maintenance49, the Malaysian court has given a clear explanation as in the case of Karunairajah v Punithambigai above where Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ gave the meaning of physical and mental disability as 'a physical and mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities, disadvantage or handicap especially one imposed or recognised by law'50. The rationale that the court had made from this case was that parents are obliged to maintain their children who are above eighteen years of age as they are suffering from physical and mental disability. Unlike the LRA, the English Children Act 1989 and English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provided an alternative for a child who wants to pursue for tertiary education and who is suffering physical and mental disability to be maintained even though they had reached the age above eighteen. The provision had provided that the children can apply for financial provision if they satisfy the conditions under the provision51. 5 MLJ cvi at cxvi If such cases fall under the provision of the English Children Act 1989,52 cross reference to the provision under the English Matrimonial Causes Act 197353 would be made as discussed in the following case. There are English cases which concerns physical and mental disable child who are being neglected of their maintenance. In the case of C v F (Disabled Child: Maintenance Orders)54, a handicap illegitimate child sought continuity of maintenance from his putative father. His putative father refused to pay his maintenance by the reason that he is above the age of majority. However, the court allows the appeal of the child as there was jurisdiction to extend such order for maintenance even though it is beyond the child's nineteenth birthday55. The reason that the appeal was allowed was based on the ground that the disabled child was still receiving some form of education or training based on the provision mentioned in the English Matrimonial Causes Act 197356. Payment of maintenance of children who are handicapped in Malaysia is illustrated in a Divorce Petition 163 of 198457, where in this case, the parties had been married for 37 years and the youngest daughter was twenty two years old and was handicapped. The husband has deserted his wife for eight years. Therefore, the wife prayed that the marriage be dissolved and for the maintenance at RM250 per month for the handicapped child. The marriage was dissolved by mutual consent and the wife accepted RM100 per month for the maintenance of the handicapped child. With reference to this case, the provision on the maintenance of a child above eighteen years old in the LRA was followed accordingly58. In the matter of education, the principle has been illustrated in the UK case of Downing v Downing (Downing Intervening)59, where the court considered that the child can apply for his order for ancillary relief. This happened because the parents of the child had refused to pay their parental contribution towards her studies in the university. The court however granted the child a leave to intervene in her parents divorce suit and to apply for financial provision against both parents. In deciding the case, the same provision was referred as mentioned before in the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. However, the provision is only allowed for a child of whom their parents are not staying together in the same household60. 5 MLJ cvi at cxvii When considering those circumstances and the provisions in the English law to what is happening in our Malaysian family law, the Malaysian judge in the case of Karunairajah had taken a step to make references and comparisons with provisions of our neighbouring country that followed English law61. The Australian case of In the Marriage of Mercer62, were referred by the judge where the husband applied to the court to discharged himself from maintaining his child who is nineteen years old in the course of her tertiary education. The court made an order for the child to be continuously maintained as to enable the child to complete its education relying upon the Australian Family Law Act 1975 as the provision enable the court to make such decision63. However, the judge in Karunairajah commented that:

So, it is a non-starter to argue that since in other countries a child is provided with maintenance to enable him or her to complete his or her tertiary education, the courts in Malaysia should do the same. We should look at our law and decide according to our law as it now stands. Just as what was done in Singapore, it is for the parliament to address the problem, not the courts. In fact our parliament and the state legislature had already done it in regard to the Islamic Family Law64

Page 8

Therefore, as an overview in this discussion, it is clear that Malaysian courts are more likely to interpret the provision of the maintenance of children65 literally and this causes the child who wants to pursue tertiary education without any avenue for maintenance as compared to the English law. However, the mentally and physically disabled children are given an avenue to be maintained even though they are above eighteen years in both the Malaysian and English law. Conclusion And Recommendations In the past, the laws and society placed the husband and wife in very different positions in respect of their respective rights and responsibilities. The husband was expected to fulfil the role of provider for the household while the wife was expected to fulfil the role of home-maker. This situation was reflected in the laws of various different societies, for example, the old Common Law of England, the local customary laws and a conservative interpretation of the Syariah66. 5 MLJ cvi at cxviii The interest in a family should be looked at as a whole and the law should also reflect the cherished values of our society. A narrow view should not be taken regarding the right, responsibilities and interest in a family. There may be some views that family affairs are a personal matters and that it is up to every individual to deal with them according to his own judgment. However, a family is an important unit in a society and the society should also be responsible and should ensure as far as possible through its laws that the obligations in a family are faithfully carried out and that there is justice for the members of a family. Unlike the LRA, the Syariah Courts make an extension of the maintenance order of children who have attained 18 years or above if they wish to pursue or higher education or training. It is interesting to note that unlike the LRA, the Islamic Enactments provides that where the child is a daughter, the father need to maintain her until she is married or who is by reason of mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining herself and similar to that of the LRA, a father needs to maintain a son above 18 years by reason of some mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining himself. Although the learned judge in the case of Gisela Getrude Abe67ruled that principles of morality should be set aside in ascertaining the maintenance of children above 18 years, however, the view of Lord Devlin should be taken into consideration. In his idea of morality, Lord Devlin states that there is public morality which provides the cement of any human society and that the law, must regard it as primary function to maintain this public morality68. With reference of Lord Devlin's idea on morality, it is stressed that morality does play a role in the legal enforcement. Thus, this idea can be supported by a quotation by contemporary perfectionist thinker, George R in 'Making Men Moral', where he argues that 'who has good reasons to believe that a certain act is immoral may support the legal prohibition of that act for the sake of protecting public morals without necessarily violating a norm of justice or political morality'69. Therefore, it is clear that the principle of morality may be considered in consideration to the issue of maintenance of children above 18 years. This had been upheld by P. Dev Anand Pillai, where he commented that obligations of parents are moral obligations that should be entrenched in every parent70. Divorce situation that is the one that mars the moral obligation 5 MLJ cvi at cxix and this should not occur if the parents put themselves to have moral obligations and morally felt obliged to maintenance their children. Hence, government should create an awareness of moral obligation to maintain their children in order to reduce the dispute in this issue. In the comment made by Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ in the case of Karunairajah71, it is noted that the learned justice have decided that the provision relating to maintenance of a child above eighteen years old need to be interpreted literally and if the learned judge acted beyond he may be acting out of his power. It is true that under the comment made by him the parliament is the one who is responsible for the change that is need in this provision in the LRA. It can see that the learned judge try to act in accordance within the doctrine of separation of powers under the administration law. Therefore, the parliament needs to take this issue very critically to evade any legal disputes in the future. 5 MLJ cvi at cxx

Page 9

1 The author is a law lecturer in the Faculty of Law UiTM, Shah Alam. Her areas of interest include family law and hotel and tourism law. She has written books, articles and presented papers at national and international levels on these areas. She can be contracted at nuraisyahc@yahoo.com. 2 See Al-Baqarah (2):233. 3 (1983) JH 56. 4 Under Shi'ah law, the first stage is up to the completion of the two years and second stage from completion of the two years up to termination of minority. 5 Wahbah al-Zuhayli, 'al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu' in Ahmad Abd al-Salam (ed) (Dar al-Fikr al-Mu`asir Damascus 1997, 4th Ed) 10:7324-5. 6 Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma'ad, 5:433-434; `Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri: Kitab al-Fiqh 'ala al-Madhahib al-Arba'ah, ( Dar al-Fikr li al-Tiba`ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi` Beirut 5 vols), 4:598-9; Wahbah Zuhayli: al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu (Damascuss: Dar al-Fikr, 1989 8 vols.) 7:744. 7 Al-Talaq (64):6. 8 Nurdeen Deurash, 'The Role of Islamic Family Law in Preserving Children Health and Well Being' <www.nurdeendeurash/research.com> 28 February 2006. 9 Retrieved from <http://www.islamonline/research/Islam.com>26 February 2006. 10 See ss 72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80 of the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territory) Act 1984. 11 See s 72 of IFLA. 12 See s 73 of IFLA. 13 See s 73 of IFLA. 14 See s 79 of IFLA. 15 (1978) 5 JH 424. 16 Section 141(1) Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 1952. 17 (1987) 6 JH 344. 18 See s 79 of the IFLA. 19 See s 80 of The Islamic Family Law Kelantan Enactment 2002. 20 See s 92, LRA. 21 See s 3(1) of the English Children Act 1989. 22 See s 92, LRA. 23 OS Khoo, Parent-Child Law in Singapore ( Butterworths Singapore 1984) 95. 24 [1960] 3 All ER 39. 25 [1998] 7 MLJ 173. 26 [2004] 6 MLJ 240. 27 Ibid, 244. 28 Tina Bond, Jill Black & Jane Bridge, Family Law (Oxford University Press Great Britain 2004) 372.

Page 10

29 [1978] QB 276. 30 [1993] 3 MLJ 696. 31 [1977] 1 WLR 533. 32 See s 95 of LRA. 33 See s 29, English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. 34 See Schedule 1, para 2(1), English Children Act 1989. 35 See s 29, English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. 36 Ibid. 37 [2004] 2 MLJ 401. 38 See s 95 of the LRA. 39 [2004] 2 MLJ 408. 40 [1997] 1 MLJ 109. 41 [2004] 2 MLJ 401. 42 Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin [1997] 1 MLJ 109. 43 Kulasingam v Rasammah [1981] 2 MLJ 36. 44 See s 95 of LRA. 45 Ibid. 46 [1986] 2 MLJ 58. 47 See s 95 of LRA. 48 [1986] 2 MLJ 60. 49 See s 95 of LRA. 50 See also para 34, judgement in Karunairajah A/L Rasiah v Punithambigai A/P Poniah [2004] 2 MLJ 401. 51 See Section 29, English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. 52 See Schedule 1, para 2 (1), English Children Act 1989. 53 See Section 29, English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. 54 (1998) 2 FLR 1. 55 See Schedule 1, para 2 (1), English Children Act 1989. 56 C v F (Disabled Child: Maintenance Orders) (1998) 2 FLR 4. 57 This divorce petition was cited in Nik Noriani Nik Badli Shah, Family Law: Maintenance and Other Financial Rights (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kuala Lumpur 1993) 79. 58 See Section 95 of LRA. 59 (1976) 3 WLR 335. 60 See Schedule 1, para 2(1), English Children Act 1989. 61 See also para 58, judgement in Karunairajah A/L Rasiah v Punithambigai A/P Poniah [2004] 2 MLJ 401.

Page 11

62 In the Marriage of Mercer (1996) ALR 237. 63 See s 76 (3), Australian Family Law Act. 64 [2004] 2 MLJ 413. 65 Section 95 of LRA. 66 Nik Noriani Nik Badli Shah, Family Law: Maintenance and Other Financial Rights (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kuala Lumpur 1993) 138. 67 [1986] 2 MLJ 58. 68 MDA Freeman, Llyod's Introduction To Jurisprudence (Sweet & Maxwell London 2001) 362. 69 MDA Freeman, Llyod's Introduction To Jurisprudence (Sweet & Maxwell London 2001) 365. 70 P Dev Anand Pillai, Supporting Children Above 18 Should It Be Made Compulsory for Parents and Supporting Parents in Their Old Age Should it Also Be Made Compulsory?, 1003 ADREM 10 (2005). 71 [2004] 2 MLJ 408.