JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") in encl 232 by the Petitioner-Husband in Suit No: WA-33-569-10/2022 for Orders of Committal against the Respondent-Wife for breaching several terms of the Consent Judgment dated 22 July 2024.

The Factual Background

[2] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively "the Parties") had registered their marriage in June 2001 in California, United States, and thereafter had registered the same at the Consulate General of Malaysia in July 2002. There are three children of the marriage, born in 2001, 2002, and 2006 respectively.

[3] The marriage did not withstand the test of time and in October 2020, the Respondent filed a petition for judicial separation vide Suit No: WA-33-448-10/2020 ("the Judicial Separation Petition"). Two years later, in October 2022, the Petitioner filed a divorce petition vide Suit No: WA-33-569-10/2022 ("the Divorce Petition").

[4] In July 2024, after lengthy negotiations, pursuant to both the Judicial Separation and Divorce Petitions, the Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Consent Judgment with the assistance of their respective solicitors.

[5] Both the Petitioner and Respondent then confirmed upon oath in open Court that they understood and agreed to the terms of the Consent Judgment.

[6] In November 2024, the Petitioner filed an application for leave to initiate committal proceedings against the Respondent for failure to comply with the following terms of the Consent Judgment:

a) Failure to take any steps including but not limited to failing to forward the Memorandum of Transfer and all other necessary documents to the Petitioner's solicitors and/or the Petitioner for execution to complete the transfer of one (1) unit of Condominium with postal address at Unit No 2-25-6, Lebuh Tunku Kudin 3, 11700 Gelugor Pulau Pinang (hereinafter referred to as "Pearl Regency 1") and a 3- storey property shoplot with postal address of B12-1, B-12-2, B-12-3, Lorong Bayan Indah 3, Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang (hereinafter referred to as "Bay Avenue") from the Petitioner to the Respondent;

b) Failure to indemnify and hold the Petitioner harmless for the monthly repayments of the loan attached to the existing charge registered under Pearl Regency 1;

c) Failure to collect the Radhakrishna statue, Ganesha statue and two (2) Rumi paintings from the Petitioner; and

d) Failure to forward evidence of withdrawal of the police reports lodged by the Respondent against the Petitioner.

[7] Leave to initiate committal proceedings was granted, and in December 2024, the Petitioner filed this Application.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

[8] Prior to the hearing of this Application, Counsel for the Respondent approached the Court with a request for the matter to be heard in chambers. She candidly admitted on behalf of the Respondent that there had indeed been a breach of the Consent Judgment. Counsel further appealed for a degree of leniency and proposed for the Petitioner to consider a more flexible approach to the terms of the Consent Judgment, in the hope that this would enable the Respondent to comply with them moving forward.

[9] I appreciated the candour and constructive approach taken by the Respondent's Counsel, who did not dispute the breach of the Consent Judgment but instead focused on seeking a practical resolution geared towards compliance. At the Counsel's request, the matter proceeded in chambers without a full hearing on the merits of the Application, acknowledging that a more informal and flexible environment was better suited to fostering meaningful dialogue between the Parties in formulating terms for the Respondent to purge her contempt.

[10] Over the course of six hours, I engaged closely with solicitors for both the Petitioner and Respondent, in an effort to find common ground. The focus of these discussions was not adversarial, but solutions-driven, which was aimed at determining whether the Respondent could purge her contempt by