Claims for breach of promise to marry remain actionable in Malaysia, unlike in many other jurisdictions where

such claims have been abolished. One reason for the removal of these claims is the perception that they often

Religion.

Every marriage begins with a promise to marry, also known as betrothal. Entering a relationship typically

involves a commitment from both parties to marry at some point in the future. This promise signifies that both

individuals are dedicated to supporting each other as husband and wife, indicating that marriage is anticipated

to occur sooner or later (Gan, 2014). Thus, the promise to marry is a crucial element, providing assurance of a

future union.

However, there are instances where individuals make insincere promises with no intention of fulfilling them,

or they may renege on their word altogether. In interpersonal relationships, people often make, and break

First, women's financial security was largely dependent on marriage, so breaking a serious promise would not

only cause emotional turmoil but also have significant economic consequences. Second, women were expected

to remain chaste until marriage, and a man's promise often implied that the woman would protect her virginity

while awaiting its fulfilment (Lettmair, 2010). Thus, it was necessary to safeguard women from being

exploited by men who might breach their marriage promises without just cause. The ramifications of romantic

relationships extend far beyond the individuals involved (Rokach & Chan, 2023). Before entering into an

exclusive relationship like marriage, it is essential to consider compatibility for those seeking to establish a

long-term commitment (Haseli et al., 2019).

This article aims to explore the legal foundations and implications of promises to marry in Malaysia,

particularly regarding how compensatory damages are awarded. It will assess the extent to which courts grant

could lead to opportunistic "gold-digging" lawsuits, and second, that the stability of marriages is crucial for

society; allowing this cause of action might pressure couples into marrying out of fear of legal repercussions,

which could negatively affect the marriage itself. Couples should feel free to end engagements without

hesitation (Majid, 1991). However, some argue that breach of promise should still be a viable legal claim.

They contend that allowing one party to walk away from their commitment could foster irresponsibility and

cause significant hardship for the wronged party, who might have been misled, jeopardised future marriage

prospects, incurred expenses, or experienced humiliation and emotional anguish (Majid, 1991).

A promise to marry, also known as betrothal, is an agreement between two parties (a man and a woman) to

marry in the future. In cases of breach of betrothal, the key question is whether legal action can be taken

second element to evaluate is whether there has been a breach of that agreement. Once a breach is confirmed,

the next consideration is whether the defaulting party has any defences available. Finally, if no defences exist,

the last element to examine is what remedies are available for the aggrieved party (Wright, 1924).

This study employs a doctrinal analysis of both primary and secondary sources related to breaches of promise

to marry. It takes a critical approach to the relevant legislation (Gawas, 2017), aiming to examine, refine, and

enhance the legal concepts, theories, principles, and applications involved. Essentially, the research uses a

focused legal analysis method that highlights specific legal problems and issues (Hutchinson & Duncan, 2012).

Legal research here relies on primary data, such as legislation and court cases from Malaysia and the UK. This

study specifically utilises court cases to investigate the law on breaches of promise to marry, particularly in

1990). The aggrieved party is entitled to seek compensation for damages resulting from the breach, such as

costs associated with wedding preparations, including house renovations intended for future living

arrangements, catering, photography, and videography (Hairom, 2024). These damages are categorised as

special damages and can be quantified in monetary terms.

Additionally, the aggrieved party can initiate a civil lawsuit against the party who broke the promise, claiming

monetary compensation for the consequences of the breach. This relates to general damages, which address the

and damage to reputation. These types of losses are often harder to quantify. In determining damages, judges

can consider not only the financial loss incurred by the plaintiff but also their emotional suffering and

wounded pride (Cousens, 1932).

Furthermore, the aggrieved party has the right to recover any gifts or expenses incurred in anticipation of the

marriage. They can request the return of these items or reimbursement for costs associated with gifts, such as

engagement rings, which are typically exchanged before or during the engagement celebration. Only the party

devastating for someone who has been promised marriage to be denied the hope of such marriage.

Several cases have addressed breach of promise to marry within the context of social, cultural, and religious

practices, leading aggrieved parties to pursue legal action against those who fail to uphold their commitments.

One notable case is Tan Kai Tze v Benjamin Kua Hock Lim (KCH-53-4-2011), where the plaintiff sought

damages for breach of promise, loss of honour, reputation, and humiliation after the defendant, a college

student, broke off their engagement despite promising to marry her. The plaintiff provided evidence that she

had initially refused to engage in sexual relations, but the defendant persuaded her by assuring her of his

commitment. The court awarded the plaintiff RM30,000 for the breach of promise, considering her age (19)

and her status as a student. Additionally, it awarded RM6,000 for loss of honour and humiliation due to the

brief duration of their relationship. The case illustrates that, despite the plaintiff losing her virginity, her future

prepare for their wedding in Singapore, including a traditional Hindu ceremony that was not legally

recognised. Following their honeymoon in Bali, the relationship soured, culminating in the defendant asking

the plaintiff to leave after a heated argument. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, acknowledging her

sacrifices and the emotional distress caused by the defendant's breach of promise. She described long-term

effects, including social ostracism and the inability to remarry within her community. The plaintiff sought

compensation for her wedding expenses and emotional suffering, and the court awarded RM150,000 in general

damages for her distress and loss of community standing, along with RM21,936.30 for proven wedding

expenses. However, claims for lost income were denied due to lack of sufficient evidence.

cultural customs, and traditional rites in the context of broken marriage promises. These traditions shape

societal practices and are recognised by the courts as significant. Research by Aman et al. (2019) and Jafari et

In the case of Nagamah A/P Subramaniam v Ponnusamy A/L Rajoo [2008] 6 MLJ 152, the court upheld the

plaintiff’s claim, finding that she had proven her case on the balance of probabilities. The defendant had

this promise, resulting in the plaintiff experiencing significant emotional distress, loss of honour, and

humiliation. The court awarded RM50,000 for the breach of promise, RM20,000 for loss of honour and mental

anguish, and RM2,000 for assault.

Despite evolving societal views on virginity, the court acknowledged that the expectation surrounding it still

affects women profoundly. It emphasised that women should not be held accountable for societal expectations,

highlighting the serious implications of betrayal through false promises of marriage. According to Kaintura et

dishonestly, given the deep societal and religious significance attached to virginity, which can lead to

considerable shame and humiliation for women.

In the case of Mattackel Shibu Alexander v Balbir Kaur Gurdial Singh [2022] CLJU 1467, the central issue

revolves around a claim for a resulting trust concerning half shares of properties. The plaintiff asserts that the

defendant holds these properties in trust for the plaintiff's benefit. Both parties acknowledged in their pleadings

that they maintained a relationship and cohabited in various homes until September 2017. Their relationship

began when the defendant was 49 and ended when she was around 60, highlighting a significant period during

which the defendant invested considerable time, effort, and financial resources. The court recognised the

weight of the defendant's commitment, particularly at such a late stage in her life. Rather than enjoying a

peaceful, debt-free existence, the defendant assumed substantial financial risks, likely motivated by the

partners. The court's evaluation, which recognised the plaintiff's relatively secure situation after her divorce,

reflects an increasing acknowledgment of women's autonomy in contemporary relationships. This stands in

demonstrates the court's efforts to maintain a fair balance in its decision-making.

can look at what will induce him to marry her, he should do so. Jabir said I asked a girl for marriage. I used to

look at her secretly, until I looked at what induced me to marry her. I therefore married her.”

As Islam emphasises the importance of keeping promises, breaking it without valid reason is discouraged.

From the wording of section 15, it is clear that remedies recoverable are limited to return of gift and

reimbursement of expenses made in good faith. There is no explicit provision for compensation due to

humiliation or emotional distress. Case laws also seem to support this view. In Aishah v Jamaludin (1978) 3

JH 104, the Court awarded compensation for expenses incurred in the preparation of marriage only. In Salbiah

Othman v Hj Ahmad Abdul Ghani (2006) JH 114, the defendant breached the promise to marry shortly before

the wedding. The court awarded compensation for expenses only while rejecting the claim for humiliation. The

Court observed that such claims are not within Syariah Court jurisdiction and are better suited for civil courts.