Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14


A) Capacity (lex domicile)

B) Procedures and formalities (lex loci celebrationis)

A) Capacity
1) Age of the parties
Section 10 of the LRA Min. age 18 years, unless
for the female who has completed her 16th. year of
age is allowed to get married provided that it is
authorized by a licence granted by the Chief Minister.
Cross refer to section 2 & 22 (2)
Non compliance void by virtue of section 69 (b).
Case: Inderjit Singh v. Jinder Pal [1975] 2 MLJ
2) Consent - i) parents / guardian
ii) parties

i) Parents / guardian
Section 12. Those who below 21 year of age and a
minor who is not previously married, must get a
written consent from the Chief Minister.
case: Re CHS [1997] 3 MLJ 152.
ii) Consent of parties
Both parties must consent to the marriage.
Def. of marriage in Hyde v Hyde obviously shows
that the marriage must be voluntarily entered into.
Section 22(6)
Section 70 ( c )
Section 37.
3) Kindred and affinity
Section 11 - parties are prohibited to marry if they are
within a prohibited relationship .
Special exception for the Hindus.
Non compliance the marriage will be void section
4) Monogamous marriage avoidance of marriage by
prior subsisting and subsequent marriage.
Section 5, 6, 7 of the LRA & section 494 PC.
Non compliance the marriage will be void section
Cases: PP v. Rajappan
Pong Teck Yin
5) Biologically male and female
Hyde v Hyde voluntary union of one man and one
Must be from a different sex.
Non compliance marriage will be void section 69
Those who have underwent a sex-change operation
- Corbett v Corbet
- Lim Ying v Hiok Kian Ming Eric
Generally all marriages should be registered
Relevant sections:-
Part 1V Registration of marriages
Section 27- Registration
Section 25 Entry in marriage register
Section 31- Registration of foreign marriage
Section 33- Voluntary registration
Section 34 Legal effect of registration
Registration has no legal effect to the validity of the
However, there are two views from the decided cases
pertaining to the validity of the customary marriages
which is not registered.
First view
The marriage is still valid even though it was not

Tan Sai Hong v. Joremi Kimin [1997] 5 CLJ 614

Chong Sin Sen v . Janaki a/p Chellamuthu [1997] 5 MLJ
Another case:
Leong Wee Shing v Chai Siew Yin [2000] 1 CLJ 439
Whether the Chinese customary marriage is void for non-
High Court held: The marriage is valid on the ground that
a Chinese customary marriage had taken place between the
parties & although it was not registered, s.34 of LRA 1976
had validated it.
752 ( Appeal )

COA : Affirmed the High Courts judgement and

dismissed the appeal
Gopal Sri Ram JCA:
there is no provision in the Act that declares / renders
void any marriage contracted between non-Muslims in
accordance with the customary ceremonial rites of the
community to which they belong. On the contrary, s. 34
declares that a marriage is otherwise valid is not
invalidated merely because it has not been registered
under the Act. That is the intention of Parliament becomes
clear when regard is had to the marginal notes to s. 34 of
the Act.
Second view
Marriage which was not registered under LRA 1976 is void

T V. O [1994] 4 CLJ 593
The court referred to s. 22(4) of the LRA and decided that
since the parties fail to comply with the provision, the so
called marriage in 1998 was a non event / void anitio.
Yeoh v Chew [2001] 4 CLJ 631
Abdul Hamid Embong J:
..for the purpose of this Act, this customary rite alone,
however recognisable & acceptable is insufficient to clothe
it with legal validity for no matrimonial court will recognise
a tea ceremony per se performed after 1 March 1982, as
marriage. ..in my view, an invalid marriage by reason
of non-solemnization such as in this case cannot be
rendered valid merely because it was not registered. The
very solemnization of this marriage itself was in question as
it had not complied with s. 5(4) of the Act. It was a non
marriage from the start, for which this court could not exert
its jurisdiction
Landmark decision by Federal Court in the appeal case of Chai Siew
Yin V Leong Wee Shing (http://accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin),
Ruled that marriage solemnised under any law, custom, or religion
not registered subsequent to 1 March 1982 invalid.
The three panel comprising the Federal Judges i.e. Datuk Pajan
Singh Gill and datin paduka Rahmah Hussain and Court od Appeal
judge Datuk Richard Malanjum was unanimous in allowing the
appeal and ruled out tt the marriage, void.
According to Datuk Pajan section 34 should not be read in
isolation but in harmony with other provisions of the LRA
which encapsulated the overall intention of the legislature in
enacting the said Act.
He further held that to do otherwise would defeat the purpose
and the intention of the LRA which was enacted to provide for
monogamous marriages and solemnisation and registration of
such marriages