KUALA LUMPUR: A High Court judge reprimanded a 71-year-old man for committing bigamy, emphasising that his actions not only violated the sanctity of marriage but also exposed him to severe legal consequences, including potential criminal charges.
Judge Evrol Mariette Peters said the act of bigamy undermined both trust in the legal system and the societal norms that safeguard the sanctity of marriage.
She said it not only violates the law but also inflicts deep emotional harm, often causing feelings of deception and betrayal for spouses and children impacted by the unlawful marriage.
The judge said this in her ruling while allowing the man's petition to annul his second marriage to a Taiwanese woman, dubbed Mei, which took place 20 years ago.
The man, dubbed Wei, registered his first marriage to a Taiwanese woman, dubbed Fei, at the Kedah National Registration Department in 1978.
Without obtaining a formal legal divorce from her, he registered a second marriage with Mei at the Malaysian High Commission in Hong Kong in 1992.
"Although this annulment petition was ultimately allowed, this court took a firm stance against the petitioner's behaviour, delivering a stern reprimand for his actions.
"The petitioner was explicitly cautioned that his conduct constituted the offence of bigamy, highlighting the severe criminal penalties that can arise from entering into a marriage while still legally bound to another.
"The violation disrupts the legal framework designed to protect the rights and responsibilities inherent in marriage, causing significant and lasting harm to the immediate individuals and the broader social fabric.
"His actions (knowingly entering into an illegal marriage) fundamentally undermined any attempt to frame this annulment petition as a pursuit of integrity.
"Rather than a demonstration of moral responsibility, this annulment petition appears to be more an effort to escape the legal consequences of his prior misconduct, rendering any appeal to ethical motivations hollow," she said in her full judgment dated Oct 31.
Peters said the petitioner's conduct demonstrated a blatant disregard for legal and ethical obligations, as he knowingly perpetuated the illusion of a valid marriage.
"In summary, the petitioner's motivations appear to be largely self-serving, focused primarily on legitimising a relationship that originated from prior illegality.
"His actions seem less about genuine accountability and more about finding a way to validate a situation he found himself in which was fraught with legal transgressions," she said.
She added the decision was not merely to allow the annulment petition but was also to emphasise the importance of accountability and the need to respect the legal framework that governs marriage, ensuring that the sanctity of the institution is preserved.