For many people looking to borrow in the current financial climate, home credit loans can be a welcome source of funds where other lending methods aren’t available or the applicant isn’t eligible. However, there are also some drawbacks with this form of borrowing, so being smart about what is being applied for is vital.
One of the main features of home credit loans is that the lending itself is secured on the property that is owned by the applicant. In practice, what this means is that if there was any reason that the repayments on the loan couldn’t be made, then the lender would have the right to repossess and sell the property in order to repay any outstanding lending.
This can be a big risk for many people, so being certain that the home credit loans that are being applied for are affordable in terms of the repayments is certainly wise, but also considering a back up plan to repay the loan if there was a drop in the household income would also be a smart move when applying for such lending.
Because the home credit loans are secured on the property of the applicant, considering applying for an income protection plan that would be sufficient to pay the repayments of the loan might be a consideration, as nobody wants to suffer having to have their home repossessed. If this is a prospect that would be uncomfortable, then it could be an idea to explore other avenues of unsecured lending if at all possible, as this will prevent the threat of losing a home becoming a reality if there are any problems with making the repayments.
There is no doubt that home credit loans have a part to play in the overall picture of personal lending across the country, but this certainly doesn’t mean they should be the first point of call for everyone looking for lending. Getting access to credit is something that many people will need from time to time, and especially if there are issues with securing a loan elsewhere, looking at this type of lending can be an useful outlet, especially if there is plenty of equity available in the property.
In Malaysia, the current law governing divorce for non-muslims is the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Of late, there are some controversies regarding the divorce procedures for a non-muslim couple whereby one of the partners have converted to Islam as his or her religion of choice. The recent Federal Court judgment in Subashini’s case remains some sort of headache for such a couple as it created some form of lacuna by saying that the civil and syariah courts are of equal standing and both can issue directions or orders notwithstanding the civil court remaining the correct forum for the dissolution of the civil marriage.
For other non-muslim couples without such a headache, the provisions in Section 8 and Section 4(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 states the instances where a marriage can be dissolved. The former applies to marriages solemnized from 1st of March, 1982 whilst the latter applies to marriages solemnized prior to that date.
Section 8 provides that such marriages may be dissolved on the death of one of the parties, or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction (i.e. a decree of divorce), or by a decree made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the marriage is null and void (i.e. a decree of nullity).
Section 4(3) provides that every such marriage existing prior to that date, unless void under the law, religion, custom or usage under which it was solemnized, shall continue until it is dissolved by the death of one of the parties, or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction (i.e. a decree of divorce) or by a decree of nullity made by a court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, unless the marriage is not valid, it shall continue to subsist until it is dissolved in either of the three scenarios given. Read more