Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2726
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
R RENUGA RAMAYAH – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH SENGARAN – Respondent
[Divorce Petition No: BA-33-382-07/2019]
The court upheld the original access order, emphasizing that a material change in circumstances must be proven to vary custody arrangements, prioritizing the child's welfare.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Sections 96 and 97 - Application to vary custody and access order - The petitioner sought to restrict access rights of the respondent husband due to the child's refusal to meet him. The court emphasized the necessity of proving a material change in circumstances for such a variation to be granted. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent had not made efforts to maintain a relationship with the child. The court ruled that the welfare of the child is paramount and upheld the original access order. (Paras 22, 24, 28, 40)
(B) Child Access - The court recognized that access is a child's right and not solely determined by parental wishes. The court must ensure that any restrictions imposed are in the best interest of the child and not merely punitive towards the other parent. (Paras 19, 30, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner wife sought to amend a previous order granting sole custody to her and supervised access to the respondent husband. The child, aged 10, consistently refused to meet the respondent during scheduled access times.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove a material change in circumstances that warranted a variation of the original order. The original access arrangement was upheld as it was in the child's best interest.
Issues: The main issues were whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the access order and the impact of the child's wishes on access rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to show a material change in circumstances. The welfare of the child was deemed paramount, and the existing access arrangement was maintained.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application to amend custody order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. proposed restriction on access rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. background of the marriage and child custody. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. child's refusal to meet father. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. petitioner's argument on child's welfare. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. respondent's defense against variation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. legal provisions for varying custody orders. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. evaluation of conflicting evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. importance of maintaining parent-child bond. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. child's expressed wishes not conclusive. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 11. court's perspective on access rights. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 12. court's dismissal of petitioner's application. (Para 40) |
Introduction
[1] This is an application by the petitioner wife dated 2 April 2023 (Enel 117) under ss 96 and 97 of the Law reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) to amend/vary the Decree Nisi/Order of Court dated 31 October 2022. The Decree Nisi and Order of Court was recorded after a full trial conducted by the High Court in Shah Alam.
[2] Pursuant to the Order of Court dated 31 October 2022, sole guardianship, custody, care and control of the child namely Khersiny Nair a/p Ramesh (now aged 10) is granted to the petitioner wife. The respondent husband is given supervised access to the child on every Saturday from 5 pm to 7 pm at KFC, USJ 21, Subang Jaya. The respondent husband is also required to pay maintenance for the child as well as arrears of maintenance with effect from the date of the filing of the divorce petition.
[3] For ease of reference and for clarity, the terms in the original Order of Court are reproduced below as follows:
"1. Bahawa perkahwinan di antara Pempetisyen dan Responden dibubarkan dan Dekri Nisi dijadikan mutlak dengan serta merta.
2. Bahawa hak penjagaan, pemeliharaan, pengawalan (custody, care, control & guardianship) terhadap anak yang bernama KHERSINY NAIR A/P RAMESH (NO. DAFTAR KELAHIRAN CW 07354 serta No MY KID: 130724-02-0118) ("Anak tersebut") yang dilahirkan pada 24 Julai 2013 diberikan sepenuhnya (sole custodian and guardianship) kepada Pempetisyen.
3. Bahawa Responden diberikan akses terkawal (supervised access) setiap hari Sabtu pada pukul 5 petang sehingga 7 malam di KFC, USJ 21, Subang Jaya.
4. Bahawa Responden memberikan RM1,500-00 sebulan sebagai nafkah bagi Anak tersebut sehingga Anak tersebut habis belajar di tahap university dan bayaran dimasukkan ke dalam akaun bank Pempetisyen Maybank: 102184006085 (R. Renuga A/P Ramayah) pada atau sebelum 7hb setiap bulan daripada tarikh perintah ini.
5. Bahawa Responden diperintah untuk membayar tunggakan nafkah Anak tersebut iaitu sebanyak RM1,500-00 sebulan bermula dari tarikh pemfailan petisyen perceraian bertarikh 12 Julai 2019 sehingga tarikh perintah ini.
6. Bahawa diperintahkan Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja (KWSP) Responden sebanyak 50% daripada jumlah baki simpanan tidak kurang daripada RM223,725.84 mengikut tarikh penyata KWSP yang telah diberikan oleh Responden bertarikh 8 Disember 2022 dan juga termasuk bagi apa-apa tambahan baki simpanan setakat tarikh perintah ini diamanahkan dan diberikan kepada anak tersebut apabila umur anak tersebut mencapai umur 18 tahun.
7. Tiada perintah bagi kos.
[4] Vide Encl 117, the proposed amendment/variation as pleaded by the petitioner wife is as follows (in bold italics and underlined):
"3. Bahawa Responden diberikan akses terkawal (supervised access) setiap hari Sabtu pada pukul 5 petang sehingga 7 malam di KFC, USJ 12, Subang Jaya jika anak tersebut ingin berjumpa dengan responden."
[5] In other words, the petitioner wife is seeking to restrict access rights of the respondent husband to be further restricted to only if the child wished to see her father.
[6] On 27 July 2023 after hearing arguments by counsel for both parties, I dismissed Encl 117 and these are my reasons.
Brief Facts
[7] The petitioner wife and respondent husband we
