Consent orders are treated as contracts and require substantial evidence for modification, particularly regarding custody and welfare of children.

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") by the Petitioner-Wife to vary the terms of a consent order recorded by both the Petitioner-Wife and Petitioner-Husband on 11 November 2019 ("the Court Order").

[2] In the interest of the privacy of the parties concerned, and sensitivity of the issues in these proceedings, the Petitioners have been anonymised in this judgment as MEN and TEN respectively, whilst the children of the marriage have been anonymised respectively as ONG and ING.

The Factual Background

[3] The Petitioners ("the Parties") filed a joint petition for divorce in October 2019 and in November 2019, the decree nisi was granted. In February 2020, it was made absolute on the agreement that the Petitioner- Husband would be granted sole custody, care, and control of the children of the marriage ("the Children") born respectively in 2013 and 2015, whilst the Petitioner-Wife would be given reasonable access to the Children.

[4] The relevant paragraphs in the Court Order are as follows:

(b) Hak jagaan tunggal dan kawalan terhadap anak-anak tersebut diberikan kepada Pempetisyen Suami;

(c) Pempetisyen Isteri mempunyai akses yang munasabah kepada anak- anak tersebut termasuk cuti umum hak lawatan sekurang-kurangnya empat (4) kali sebulan. Pempetisyen Isteri berhak untuk membawa anak-anak tersebut dengan beliau dan tinggal bermalaman dengan anak-anak tersebut. Pempetisyen Isteri akan menyediakan pengangkutan;

[5] In August 2023, the Petitioner-Wife filed this Application to vary the Court Order as follows:

(b1) bahawa hak jagaan, pemeliharaan dan kawalan terhadap anak-anak yang berikut diberikan kepada Pempetisyen Isteri secara tunggal:

(i) ONG (No. Sijil Kelahiran: *****); dan

(ii) ING (No. Sijil Kelahiran: *****)

(b2) bahawa Pempetisyen Suami hendaklah membayar jumlah sebanyak RM1,500.00 untuk setiap anak sebagai nafkah anak kepada Pempetisyen Isteri secara pemindahan bank kepada bank akaun Pempetisyen Isteri (Public Bank Berhad Akaun No: *****) pada/sebelum 7 haribulan setiap bulan;

(c) bahawa Pempetisyen Suami diberikan akses yang munasabah terhadap anak-anak perkahwinan pada bila-bila masa dengan memberikan tiga (3) hari notis kepada Pempetisyen Isteri, sekiranya Pempetisyen Isteri mempunyai masa lapang pada hari tersebut dan anak-anak perkahwinan tidak mempunyai kelas tuisyen, aktiviti kokurikulum yang telah diaturkan terlebih dahulu.

[6] In a nutshell, the Petitioner-Wife now sought custody, care, and control of the Children as well as child maintenance, whilst access was to be given to the Petitioner-Husband.

The Issues

[7] The crux of this Application revolved around the justification for a variation of the Court Order. Central to this Court's deliberation was the evaluation of whether the existing terms of the Court Order were both reasonable and conducive to the welfare of the Children.

[8] The Petitioner-Husband, however, raised a procedural objection, contending that the Application was flawed due to its purported reliance on ss 93 and 97 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act"), instead of s 96 of the same Act.

[9] The Application was dismissed based on both its procedural objection and its merits, for the following reasons.

Contentions, Findings, And Evaluation

Whether This Application Should Have Been Filed Under Section 96 Of The Law Reform (Marriage And Divorce) Act 1976

[10] At the outset of the proceedings, the Petitioner-Husband articulated a procedural objection, contending that the current Application was fundamentally flawed in its legal basis. Specifically, he argued that the Application ought to have been premised on s 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, instead of s 97. Both sections read:

Section 96 - Power for to vary orders for custody or maintenance

The Court may at any time and from time to time vary, or may rescind, any order for the custody or maintenance of a child on the application of any intere