Cover image via Follow us on Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp for the latest stories and breaking news.
The Slim River Magistrate's Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man seeking to recover over RM22,000 from his former girlfriend, ruling that the funds were financial support within a romantic context rather than a formal loan
The plaintiff, P Navaneeth, had initiated the legal action against N Retha following the breakdown of their two-year relationship, according to the New Straits Times.
Navaneeth sought repayment of RM22,352.24, asserting that the sum comprised various "friendly loans" extended to Retha between 2020 and 2022.
The financial transfers included a range of transactions, from small transactions to larger amounts intended for car maintenance, insurance premiums, and medical expenses.
According to Navaneeth, his former partner had verbally promised to reimburse him for these costs.
However, Retha contested the claim, denying that she had ever borrowed money from the plaintiff
Her defence maintained that the funds were provided voluntarily as gifts or mutual assistance during a time when they were cohabiting and planning a future together.
The court heard that the couple first met on Facebook in 2020 and subsequently lived together, sharing daily expenses as a household.
The relationship eventually collapsed amid a series of disputes involving allegations of infidelity and deception, which culminated in the filing of police reports by both parties.
Once the relationship ended, Navaneeth demanded the return of the funds and initiated legal action when Retha refused to pay.
In her written judgment on Friday, 10 April, Magistrate Phulrani Kaur Gurcharon Singh acknowledged that while bank records confirmed the transfer of funds into Retha's account, the plaintiff had failed to establish the "intention to create legal relations"
This specific legal principle is a mandatory requirement under Malaysian contract law to prove the existence of a binding agreement.
The magistrate noted that it is standard practice for couples to provide financial aid to one another based on mutual affection and shared living arrangements.
"The court finds that the parties were in a romantic relationship; therefore, no intention to create legal relations arose," she said in her grounds of judgment. She further observed that it is natural for partners to assist each other financially due to the bond of love existing at the time.
A decisive factor in the ruling was the complete absence of any documented or agreed-upon repayment terms
The court found that Navaneeth had produced no evidence on a balance of probabilities to suggest a contractual context for the transactions. Without a clear agreement on when or how the money should be returned, the court ruled that Retha could not be held legally responsible for the debt.
The plaintiff was represented by P Rajesweri, while Nathasha Parvena appeared for the defendant.
