Esteemed readers
Pls go to my site:
http://highereducationinmalaysia.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.:World Class Higher Education in Malaysia: USIM Third Year LAW Undergraduate
Sample answer by USIM LAW undergraduate 1050612
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
which the civil court has preside :World Class Higher Education in Malaysia: USIM Third Year LAW Undergraduate
Sample answer by USIM LAW undergraduate 1050612
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
has been proved : USIM Third Year LAW Undergraduate:World Class Higher Education in Malaysia: USIM Third Year LAW Undergraduate
Sample answer by USIM LAW undergraduate 1050612
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
the civil court have :World Class Higher Education in Malaysia: USIM Third Year LAW Undergraduate
Sample answer by USIM LAW undergraduate 1050612
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
Yes, the civil court have the jurisdiction to preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian among Muslims. It has been proved by two leading cases which the civil court has preside over claims for Harta Sepencarian. The case is Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khatthum and Boto v Jaafar.
In Roberts @ Kamarulzaman v Umi Khalthum, the spouses had bought a matrimonial home for RM50,000. The husband contribute RM40,000 and the wife RM10,000. The house was named under the wife. After the dissolution of marriage or divorce, the husband apply that the house to be divided equally among them. The wife was not agree to this claims. The court held that the asset must be divided equally among them.In Boto v Jaafar, the husband and wife was marry in 1966. During the subsistence of marriage, they was bought a house, a piece of land, four fishing boats and one fish stall. The husband run a fishing business. After the divorce, the wife was claim the Harta Sepencarian.
Salleh Abas CJ held that the assets must be divided among them although the wife was not contribute to bought that assets. The wife was give an indirect contribution as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband to run the fishing business with proper sense. The court held that one-third of the assets was divide to the plaintiff and two-third for the defendant. The one-third division is for the indirectly contribution by the plaintiff to support the plaintiff’s fishing business.[Marks earned: Zero (0) out of Eleven(11)]
the court held, the case retried:World Class Higher Education in Malaysia: USIM Third Year LAW Undergraduate
Sample answer by USIM LAW undergraduate 1050617
This case is about the husband pronouce talaq to his wife by saying “I divorced you. I divorced you. I divorced you”. The issue here whether the pronouncement of 3 Talaq at once, can consider as 3 talaqs or one talaq only. According to Hanafi sect, it fell under 1 talaq, but Shafii sect, 3 talaq. But, in this case, the Husband alleged that he is had induced by Black Magic. So, it is not under his proper sense. The Syariah Court held that talaq is consider as 3 talaq but they appealed to appeal court. The court give judgement that the lower court must determined on the influenced by the Black Magic and must trial with witness. So, the court held, the case retried before another kadi/judge.[Marks earned: One Point Four (1.4) out of Ten]
This case is about the husband pronouce talaq to his wife by saying “I divorced you. I divorced you. I divorced you”. The issue here whether the pronouncement of 3 Talaq at once, can consider as 3 talaqs or one talaq only. According to Hanafi sect, it fell under 1 talaq, but Shafii sect, 3 talaq. But, in this case, the Husband alleged that he is had induced by Black Magic. So, it is not under his proper sense. The Syariah Court held that talaq is consider as 3 talaq but they appealed to appeal court. The court give judgement that the lower court must determined on the influenced by the Black Magic and must trial with witness. So, the court held, the case retried before another kadi/judge.[Marks earned: One Point Four (1.4) out of Ten]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
must trial with witness:World Class Higher Education in Malaysia: USIM Third Year LAW Undergraduate
Sample answer by USIM LAW undergraduate 1050617
This case is about the husband pronouce talaq to his wife by saying “I divorced you. I divorced you. I divorced you”. The issue here whether the pronouncement of 3 Talaq at once, can consider as 3 talaqs or one talaq only. According to Hanafi sect, it fell under 1 talaq, but Shafii sect, 3 talaq. But, in this case, the Husband alleged that he is had induced by Black Magic. So, it is not under his proper sense. The Syariah Court held that talaq is consider as 3 talaq but they appealed to appeal court. The court give judgement that the lower court must determined on the influenced by the Black Magic and must trial with witness. So, the court held, the case retried before another kadi/judge.[Marks earned: One Point Four (1.4) out of Ten]
This case is about the husband pronouce talaq to his wife by saying “I divorced you. I divorced you. I divorced you”. The issue here whether the pronouncement of 3 Talaq at once, can consider as 3 talaqs or one talaq only. According to Hanafi sect, it fell under 1 talaq, but Shafii sect, 3 talaq. But, in this case, the Husband alleged that he is had induced by Black Magic. So, it is not under his proper sense. The Syariah Court held that talaq is consider as 3 talaq but they appealed to appeal court. The court give judgement that the lower court must determined on the influenced by the Black Magic and must trial with witness. So, the court held, the case retried before another kadi/judge.[Marks earned: One Point Four (1.4) out of Ten]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
