KUALA LUMPUR: A woman was fined RM1,000 in default one month imprisonment by the Shah Alam magistrate court for damaging her former husband's car following his 'talak 3' divorce via a WhatsApp message after three months of marriage.
The tumultuous marriage crisis began when the man, a surgeon with a 'Datuk' title, married the woman as his second wife in April 2020, despite his first wife's disagreement.
The man, who works at a private hospital in Shah Alam, convinced the woman that he would speak to his first wife after they got married, but on July 21 of the same year, he sent a WhatsApp message, divorcing the former with talak 3 (no irrevocable third pronouncement of divorce).
The woman was also contacted by the police, informing her that a police report had been lodged by her former husband, alleging theft of their jointly owned company's bank account card.
Devastated by her former husband's action, on July 24, at about 8pm, the woman went to his house and upon seeing him arrive home at 12am, she knocked on the driver's window to speak with him.
Surprised by this, the man did not open his car door as the woman was screaming at him. He attempted to leave the house, prompting his former wife to jump onto the car's hood and vehemently knock on the windshield, resulting in a crack.
The man proceeded to reverse his BMW 530 slowly with his former wife still on top of the hood and drove towards the junction of the housing area.
Both of them talked before the man lodged a report at the nearby police station.
Subsequently, the woman was charged under Section 427 of the Penal Code for damaging her former husband's windshield causing a loss of RM5,000.
The woman during the trial argued that she decided to confront her former husband after the latter had been avoiding and denied her access from his workplace.
The accused contended that she was a victim of the complainant's (former husband) lies and ended up marrying him.
She argued that the complainant had divorced her without courtesy through a text message on WhatsApp upon his first wife learning about the second marriage.
The accused said the complainant then ignored and avoided her when she tried to contact him.
This pushed the accused resorting to going to the complainant's house on the date of the incident.
The prosecution submitted that the court ought to pass a maximum sentence considering the sentence is passed after a full trial, and the evidence produced in court is sufficient to warrant such punishment.
The prosecution also moved the court to consider the damage that the complainant has suffered.
The court, at the end of the defence case, found that the prosecution had successfully met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused.
Magistrate Sasha Diana Sabtu in her ruling said the court was satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the accused's repeated action would and in fact did lead to damage to the car, but the court also recognises the fact that it was done in desperation.
She said the complainant mercilessly denied the accused of any opportunity to discuss their marital crisis.
"The accused was devastated and desperate that she went on to wait for hours outside the complainant's house.
"Even so, the complainant refused to speak when met by the accused.
"All this led to the accused being so desperate and emotional that she started banging on the window and windshield to get the man out of the car just so that she could speak to him.
"Had the complainant allowed space for discussion, had the complainant handled the divorce with mercy and courtesy, the accused would not have to resort to such desperate measures," she said in her ground judgment published on March 13.
She said the sentence passed by this court was not tempered with favour or sympathy, rather it was with due deliberation of what has taken place and how it took place.
"There was no record put forward by the prosecution to show that the accused had committed any other offences before and after this present charge.
"The accused is a first-time offender and a one-time offender. She is not a hardcore criminal or a habitual offender.
"As such, a record of conviction and sentence of fine, in my opinion, appropriate and sufficient to deter the accused from committing further crime," she said, adding that in the present case, the minimum term of imprisonment is one year.
She said despite the involvement of violence, the circumstances demonstrate that the offence occurred amidst a marriage crisis.
"The act was not premeditated with intention to cause damage from the onset.
"I am of the opinion, given the fact of the case, that the punishment of a minimum one-year imprisonment in this case is inappropriate and excessive," she added.
The prosecution is appealing the sentence.