An application to vary custody orders requires proof of a material change in circumstances, which the plaintiff failed to establish.

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") by the Plaintiff husband in encl 49, to vary a court order granted on 30 July 2021 with regard to custody, care and control, access of the child, and maintenance of both wife and child.

[2] In the interest of privacy and consideration for the sensitivity of the issues in these proceedings, the Plaintiff, Defendant and their child have been anonymised in this judgment respectively as ARK, HUG and ZEC.

The Factual Background

[3] The Plaintiff, a British citizen, and the Defendant, a Malaysian, were married in April 2011 in Malaysia. They are blessed with a daughter ("the Child"), who, at the time of the hearing, was 7 years old.

[4] The marriage gradually deteriorated, and in May 2017, the parties had separated. In May 2020, the Plaintiff filed an application seeking access to the Child, whilst in June 2020, the Defendant filed an application seeking, inter alia, sole guardianship and sole custody, care and control of the Child, and an order to restrain the PlaintifSf from taking the Child out of Malaysia.

[5] On 30 July 2021, an order ("the Order") was granted in the following manner, setting out the arrangement for custody, care and control and access of the Child, as well as maintenance for both the Defendant and the Child:

1. Bahawa Defendan diberikan hak penjagaan tunggal, pemeliharaan dan kawalan tunggal terhadap anak perkahwinan tersebut, [ZEC] diberikan kepada Defendan;

2. Bahawa Plaintif diberikan akses kepada Anak tersebut seperti berikut:

2.1 Sebelum Anak tersebut mencapai umur tujuh (7) tahun:

a. Akses mingguan pada hari Sabtu, jam 10.00 pagi - 2.00 petang; dan

b. Akses bermalam sekali sebulan pada hari Sabtu jam 10.00 pagi - Ahad jam 6.00 petang (Tiada akses mingguan sekiranya akses bermalam diberikan pada minggu tersebut).

2.2 Selepas Anak tersebut mencapai umur tujuh (7) tahun:

a. Akses bermalam dua (2) kali sebulan pada hari Jumaat jam 10.00 pagi - Ahad jam 6.00 petang.

2.3 Akses secara panggilan video / Facetime pada hari Selasa dan Khamis jam 7.00 petang.

3. Bahawa sebelum Anak tersebut mencapai umur tujuh (7) tahun, Plaintif membayar kepada Defendan suatu jumlah bulanan sebanyak RM1,500.00 pada setiap 3hb setiap bulan bermula tarikh Perintah ini;

4. Bahawa selepas Anak tersebut mencapai umur tujuh (7) tahun, Plaintif membayar kepada Defendan tersebut suatu jumlah bulanan sebanyak RM2,000.00 pada setiap 3hb setiap bulan dengan kenaikan 5% setiap tahun bermula 1 Januari;

5. Bahawa Plaintif membayar Defendan RM2,000.00 sebulan sebagai nafkah bermula tarikh Perintah ini;

6. Bahawa Plaintif diberikan kebenaran untuk membawa Anak tersebut keluar dari Malaysia untuk tujuan melancong atau berlibur dengan memberikan notis secara bertulis kepada Defendan; dan

[6] On 7 October 2021, the Plaintiff had sought clarification from the court as to whether he was allowed access to the Child during public holidays and school holidays. The request for clarification read:

sama ada klausa tersebut (Clause 6 of Custody Order) termasuk pelancongan dan peliburan tempatan (Malaysia) pada hari pelepasan am dan musim cuti persekolahan, memandangkan pelaksanaan Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan dan sekatan perjalanan ke luar negara pada masa ini

[7] On 26 October 2021, the court responded via email:

Clause 5 (Clause 6 in Custody Order) provides for holidays abroad but the provision does not exclude domestic holidays during Child overnight access from Saturday 10am to Sunday 6pm. Upon attainment of 7 years old, domestic holidays access may be allowed fortnightly overnight access from Friday 10.00am to Sunday 6pm. By implication, provision on holid