The court established that failure to comply with a child maintenance order constitutes wilful contempt, and committal proceedings can enforce monetary judgments despite procedural objections.

Julie Lack J:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 125 was filed by the petitioner wife (PW) to seek for an order for committal against the respondent husband (RH) for breaching the order of court granted by SM Komathy J (as Her Ladyship then was) dated 31 October 2022. The non-compliance is in relation to the RH's failure to pay child maintenance and arrears of maintenance.

[2] In this matter, I had directed for written submissions to be prepared and called for the RH to give evidence from the witness stand before closing the proceedings.

[3] After having read the cause papers, considered the written and oral submissions by the parties as well as the sworn evidence of the RH, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the RH was guilty of contempt of court in failing to pay child maintenance and arrears of maintenance in wilful breach of the order of court dated 31 October 2023, in particular, paras 4 and 5 thereof.

[4] Sentence was deferred, giving the RH time and the opportunity to purge his contempt. He failed to do so and on 24 November 2023, the RH was sentenced to a term of four months' imprisonment to take effect from the date of the order.

[5] The RH has appealed against my decision.

[6] These are my reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

[7] The parties were married on 9 April 2010 and have a daughter (the child) who is now 11 years old. The marriage broke down and the PW filed a divorce petition on 12 July 2019. The matter went to trial and on 31 October 2022 the learned judge allowed a decree nisi to be granted and made absolute immediately.

[8] The learned judge ordered, inter alia, that the PW be granted sole custody care and control of the child with supervised access granted to the RH every Saturday from 5pm to 7pm at a predesignated public place.

[9] The learned judge further ordered the RH to pay a monthly maintenance of RM1,500.00 per month for the child until the child graduates from her first university degree. The said maintenance amount is to be payable into the PW's bank account on or before the seventh of each month from the date of such order.

[10] The RH was also ordered to pay arrears of child maintenance of RM1,500.00 per month with effect from the date of the filing of the divorce petition until date of said order.

[11] The RH refused/neglected to pay the maintenance and arrears of maintenance and still continued to do so even after the notice of application in encl 125 was filed. The PW sent several reminders and notices urging the RH to comply with the order prior to filing the instant application. The PW was left with no alternative but to file this committal proceedings.

[12] Leave to commence committal proceedings was granted to the PW by this court on 11 April 2023 pursuant to O 52 r 3 of the ROC 2012.

[13] Subsequently, she filed the instant application to enforce the order of the court dated 31 October 2022.

[14] At the time of the filing of the application, the RH was in arrears of child maintenance of RM60,000.00 for the period from July 2019 to October 2022 and thereafter the sum of RM6,000.00 from November 2022 until to date.

[15] It is worth noting that the RH did not appeal against the decision of the court, which was handed down after a full trial. It is also crucial to emphasise that the RH had not filed any application to vary the court order dated 31 October 2023 in particular with regard to payment of child maintenance.

[16] As noted earlier, the RH had not paid a single cent of child maintenance since then. The RH himself admitted in his affidavit that he has not paid the monthly maintenance as well as the arrears of maintenance. Prima facie the RH can be said to have breached the court order without good reason.

Preliminary Objections Raised By RH

[17] At the outset, the RH raised a number of preliminary objections, the first of which is that the PW had failed to serve the order granting leave personally on the RH. The RH contends that the failure to serve the order has violated O 52 r 4(3) of