Court emphasizes strict compliance with disclosure rules; failure to demonstrate material change in circumstances leads to dismissal of variation application.

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this application") by the petitioner husband in encl 18 to vary the terms of a decree nisi dated 10 January 2017, to reduce payment of spousal and child maintenance.

The Factual Background

[2] The petitioners had registered their marriage in September 2004 and were blessed with two sons, born in 2005 and 2008. In November 2016, the petitioners filed a joint petition for divorce and obtained a decree nisi ("the Order") in January 2017, with both consenting to the following terms and conditions:

(i) Petitioner husband shall pay RM2,000.00 as wife maintenance every month before the 7th of the month by banking into petitioner wife's Public Bank Account No **** from the date of the Decree Nisi Absolute;

(ii) Petitioner husband shall pay RM1,500.00 every month for the petitioner wife to rent house, if needed, and the payment should bank into petitioner wife's Public Bank Account No **** from the date of the Decree Nisi Absolute;

(iii) Petitioner husband shall pay RM1,500.00 for each of the children from the marriage until the children attained 24 years old every month before the 7th of the month by banking into petitioner wife's Public Bank Account No **** from the date of the Decree Nisi Absolute;

(iv) Petitioner husband shall bear all the existing insurance costs owned by petitioner wife which is Prudential Insurance with policy no ****; and

(v) Petitioner husband shall bear all the existing insurance costs owned by the two children which are Prudential Insurance with policy no **** and ****

[Emphasis Added]

[3] Pursuant to the Order, the petitioner husband was obliged to make a monthly payment of MYR6,500, which was MYR2,000 for spousal maintenance, MYR1,500 for the wife's rental payment, and MYR3,000 for both children.

[4] This application sought to reduce the monthly spousal maintenance from MYR2,000 to MYR500, and monthly maintenance for both children from MYR3,000 to MYR1,500, which would leave the petitioner husband with an obligation to make a monthly payment of MYR3,500.

[5] This application was dismissed for the following reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

Whether Petitioner Husband Had Complied With Rule 63 Of Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980

[6] At the outset, the issue was whether the petitioner husband had complied with r 63 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 (" Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules "), which required him to affirm an affidavit setting out full particulars of his property and income. Rule 63 reads:

Rule 63 - Evidence on application for variation order

(1) An application for a variation order shall be supported by an affidavit by the applicant setting out full particulars of his property and income and the grounds on which the application is made.

(2) The respondent to the application may, within 14 days after service of the affidavit, file an affidavit in answer.

[Emphasis Added]

[7] The petitioner husband claimed that he had complied with r 63 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules . It is important to note that r 63 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules requires the setting out of full particulars of property and income. However, a perusal of the affidavits affirmed by the petitioner husband indicated that he had failed to make full, frank and clear disclosure of his property, including movables or immovables, his bank account statements, and credit card statements to show full particulars of all his property and income. The only documents that the petitioner husband had exhibited in his affidavits were reports and financial