Category Archives: as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband

I challenge You Khaled Nordin & Muhamad Muda

I challenge You Khaled Nordin & Muhamad Muda to release to the public the final exam papers for Ahwal Shakhsiyyah which I marked. Some of the papers were inspected by reporters from the Star & Kosmo!……..This is the month of Shaaban, next month is Ramadhan. You cowards have been unfair to me……..Just you wait, O shameless ones, just you wait…..for Allah is Most Fair & Just, He witnessed all your transgressions towards me…..HasbunAllah Wa Ni’mal Wakeel Ni’mal Maula Wa Ni’maNNaseer . Allahumma Solli ‘Ala Saidina Muhammad wa ‘ala alihi wasahbihi wasallim. Ya Allah Engkau Maha Adil Lagi Maha Mengetahui, Aku percaya padaMu Ya Allah……Balaslah kejahatan golongan yang menzalimi diriku dan anak-anakku Ya Allah Ya Rahmaan Ya Raheem.Ameen Ya Rabbal A’lamin.


as she responsible to keep the peace of mind of to her husband: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)]