JUDGMENT

Julie Lack J:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 147 is an application by the Respondent Husband (RH) to vary the Consent Order dated 21 June 2019 (Encl 55) and 26 February 2021 (Encl 65).

[2] The terms sought to be varied are inter alia as follows:

(1) that joint guardianship and joint custody of the Child be granted to both the Petitioner Wife (PW) and RH with are and control granted to the PW;

(2) the RH be granted unsupervised access of the Child as follows:

(i) unsupervised access (without overnight stays) on Saturday, in the 2nd and 4th week from 10.00am - 5.00pm;

(ii) overnight access every 1st and 3rd week from Friday 6.00pm to Sunday 5.00pm;

(RH to send and fetch the Child from the PW's home according to the times above);

(3) for every access of the RH of the Child, the PW nor her family will not obstruct access;

(4) RH be entitled to substitute access if access is cancelled;

(5) RH be entitled to participate in all school activities of the Child;

(6) Additional access during school holidays be granted and divided equally between the RH and the PW;

(7) Access on public holidays

(8) Additional access be given to the RH on the Child's birthday, the RH's birthday, Ponggal, Deepavali, New Year or any religious or family functions at the RH's home;

(9) PW and RH are not allowed to take the Child overseas without the other party's consent;

(10) Video/telephone calls every day for 15 minutes and the PW be directed not to be next to the Child during these calls;

(11) The RH and the Child continue the therapy sessions at Selayang Hospital until further advice from the Specialist in Selayang Hospital and/or any other hospital referred to by the specialist;

(12) RH to fetch and send Child for each therapy session;

(13) PW not be allowed to obstruct, cancel or change the sessions until further advice be obtained from the specialist and the PW not be allowed to accompany the Child;

(14) The parents or any party connected with the PW not be allowed to disrupt, obstruct or interfere with every access of the therapy session of the RH and the Child;

(15) RH to be informed as soon as possible if the Child is unwell or has an emergency;

(16) PW to immediately disclose her latest address to the RH and to inform the RH of the latest address if she changes her address until the Child reaches 18 years of age or completes her tertiary education (Which ever comes first);

(17) Penal Indorsement to be entered into the Encl 65 Order;

(18) Costs be in the cause; and

(19) Any other relief that this Honorable Court deems fit and proper to grant.

[3] After hearing both parties, I dismissed the prayers for variation of custody and access and ordered that parties are to bear their own costs.

[4] The RH has appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal.

[5] My reasons are set out below.

Background Facts

[6] The PW and RH were married on 14 July 2011 and their union was blessed with a daughter born on 22 December 2014. The Child is now 10 years old.

[7] The marriage irretrievably broke down and on 1 March 2017, the PW left the matrimonial home and took the Child with her. The Child was 3 years old at the material time.

[8] On 5 September 2017 the High Court granted the RH supervised access to the Child. The RH was allowed access from 12.00pm to 2.00pm on Saturdays.

[9] On 21 June 2019 the parties recorded consent judgment whereby Decree Nisi was granted and made absolute immediately (see Encl 55). It was further agreed as follows:

(i) Joint guardianship be given to the parties with the PW having custody care and control of the Child;

(ii) RH to be given unsupervised access to the Child every Saturday from 12.30pm to 3.30pm. The RH is to fetch and send the Child back to the PW's house after every access. Access is at AEON Mall, Bukit Tinggi, Klang or Setia Alam Mall, Klang;

(iii) Parties to give 7 days notice if they are unable to attend on the access days;

(iv) PW will inform RH as soon as possible if the Child is unwell; and

(v) RH will be given substitute dates for access to