This Islamic Family Law Enactment of Pahang, Malaysia, is based on the model of the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territory) Act, 1984 (Annual Review of Population Law, Vol. 11, 1984, Section 250). It differs from that Law in the following major respects: 1) marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims are prohibited; 2) a wali Hakim (special guardian appointed by the Sultan) is authorized to consent to marriage if the wali (guardian) of the bride unreasonably withholds consent; 3) the grounds for divorce are fewer (failure to maintain and cruelty being omitted), although there is a general provision allowing divorce for any ground that is recognized as valid by Islamic law; 4) a son is to be maintained until the age of 15, not 18; and 5) a religious court, rather than a civil court, may order a putative father to maintain his illegitimate child.
The Court held that, in determining whether to authorize a Muslim man to take a second wife under Rule 11 of the Malaysia Muslim Marriage and Divorce Rules 1968, an objective test, rather than a subjective test, should be used. It ruled that, whether "a husband is competent to support more than one wife and will be able, if he marries more than one wife, to treat them with equity in accordance with the Muslim law" should be established by objective evidence, not merely by a husband's statement that he can support both wives and will treat them equitably. The Court allowed the appeal of the wife of the respondent against a decision of the Registrar of Muslim Marriages to allow the respondent to take a second wife.
The defendant, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, was accused of voluntarily causing a woman to miscarry, such miscarriage having been performed without good faith and an intention to save the woman's life. The Court upheld the conviction of the defendant, rejecting his argument, supported by an expert witness, that he had performed the abortion in order to avoid the possibility of pulmonary embolism, which might result because the woman had enlarged varicose veins. It held that the argument was not reasonable under the current law and that procuring an abortion was a serious matter to be done only as a last resort to save the life of a woman or to save her from becoming a mental "wreck."