The burden of proof lies on the applicant to demonstrate material changes in circumstances necessitating a variation of a consent order in custody matters.

[1] This Originating Summons ("OS") was originally filed in the Family Court, Alor Setar, Kedah on 4 May 2017 where the Plaintiff Husband ("PH") claimed for guardianship, custody, care and control of the children of the marriage or in the alternative he be given access to the said children. On 7 January 2018, PH and DW then entered into a consent order [(encl 18) - referred as "the said consent order " ] whereby parties had agreed that custody, care and control of the children of this marriage were given to DW and access was given to PH. PH had also agreed to pay RM400.00 every month for the maintenance of each child and other payments. This OS was then transferred to the Family Court, Shah Alam via a notice of transfer filed under O 57 r 2 Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012") dated 26 June 2018 (encl 19).

[2] On 21 January 2019, PH filed this application (encl 26) under O 42 r 13 RC 2012, seeking to vary and/or review the terms in the said consent order by seeking the custody, care and control of the said children and claiming for maintenance of the said children from DW and other prayers. For ease of reference I shall reproduced (in table form) the claim by PH against DW as follows:

[3] The relevant cause papers are as follows:

(a) enclosure 18: The consent order dated 7 January 2018;

(b) enclosure 26: PH's application to amend/varied encl 18, filed on 21 January 2019

(c) enclosure 27: Affidavit in support affirmed by Thirupathy Muniandy on 25 January 2019;

(c) enclosure 28: Affidavit in reply affirmed by Bintumathy Ramakrishnan on 14 February 2019;

(d) enclosure 32: Affidavit in reply affirmed by Thirupathy Muniandy on 11 April 2019;

(e) enclosure 33: Affidavit in reply affirmed by Bintumathy Ramakrishnan and filed on 24 April 2019;

(f) enclosure 37: Affidavit in reply affirmed by Bintumathy Ramakrishnan on 13 May 2019;

Submissions/Reply By PH And DW

[4] In this OS, PH is represented by a senior counsel whereas DW a lay person, had earlier filed a notice (encl 5) notifying that she is acting on her own (bertindak sendiri). This application was heard before me on 31 May 2019 and after perusing the cause papers filed, respective written submissions of the parties, I dismissed the said application with an order that cost of RM2,000.00 to be paid forthwith. Dissatisfied, PH had filed this appeal and my reasons are as follows: