1. Application to vary a decree nisi regarding child access and maintenance under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 MarsdenLR 3051
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
EVROL MARIETTE PETERS, J
HEN – Plaintiff
Versus
HIN – Defendant
DIVORCE PETITION NO WA-33JP-586-04 OF 2017
Advocates:
Kuah Jiun Yu (Yew & Partners) for the petitioner husband.
Goh Hui Hui (Kelvin Wong, Phang & Assoc) for the petitioner wife.
Kuah Jiun Yu (Yew & Partners) for the petitioner husband.
Goh Hui Hui (Kelvin Wong, Phang & Assoc) for the petitioner wife.
Access to a child is a fundamental right of the child and cannot be tied to child maintenance payments. A parent's consistent denial of access constitutes a material change in circumstances justifying the variation of access orders, regardless of whether the original order was by consent.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act - Sections 83 and 96 - Variation of orders for custody and maintenance - Material change in circumstances - The court may vary or rescind any order for the custody or maintenance of a child where it is satisfied that there has been any material change in the circumstances (Para 20).
(B) Consent Orders - In matrimonial cases, the court retains discretion to vary a consent order for custody or maintenance if there is a material change in circumstances, as the primary principle of the welfare of the children outweighs the notion of finality of consent orders (Para 18).
(C) Child Access and Maintenance - Access to a child is a fundamental right of the child and must never be employed as a bargaining chip or tied to the payment of child maintenance (Para 32). A spouse's conduct in consistently denying access can amount to a material change in circumstances (Para 35).
(D) Procedural Technicalities - Courts are inclined to afford parties the opportunity to rectify procedural matters and address substantive merits rather than permitting technicalities to obstruct the delivery of substantive justice, provided no prejudice is inflicted upon the opposing party (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A husband applied to vary a decree nisi regarding child access and maintenance. He contended that he had been denied access to the children since 2017 and sought to cease maintenance payments based on a conditional agreement with the wife. The wife objected to the application on procedural grounds regarding the supporting affidavit and argued that the decree, being a consent order, was not subject to variation. She further justified the denial of access by citing the husband's failure to meet maintenance obligations.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the procedural objection as no prejudice was caused to the wife. It held that consent orders for custody and maintenance are indeed subject to variation. The court found that the wife's conduct in denying access for over six years constituted a material change in circumstances. However, the husband's request to vary maintenance was rejected as it was an attempt to evade obligations and did not constitute a material change.
Issues: (i) Whether a procedural defect in an affidavit should bar the application; (ii) Whether a consent order for custody and maintenance is subject to variation; and (iii) Whether the denial of access and non-payment of maintenance established a material change in circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the welfare of the child is paramount and access is an inherent right of the child that cannot be contingent upon maintenance payments. A parent's consistent denial of access constitutes a material change in circumstances justifying the variation of access terms. Conversely, bankruptcy proceedings or attempts to evade maintenance obligations do not justify varying maintenance terms.
Result: Application allowed only to the extent of varying and specifying the terms of access.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over affidavit admissibility, the variability of consent orders, and whether denial of access or bankruptcy constitutes a material change in circumstances. (Para 7 , 8 , 16 , 27 , 30 , 38 )
3. The court prioritized substantive justice over procedural technicalities and emphasized that child access is a fundamental right independent of maintenance obligations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 24 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
4. Custody and maintenance orders, including consent orders, may be varied upon proof of material change in circumstances to protect the welfare of the children. (Para 18 , 20 , 24 , 32 , 35 )
5. Application allowed only to vary and specify terms of child access; prayer to vary child maintenance denied. (Para 5 , 42 , 43 )
6. Can a consent order for child custody or maintenance be varied?
Yes. The court retains discretion to vary such orders, regardless of whether they were made by consent, if there is a material change in circumstances, prioritizing the welfare of the children and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction. (Para 18 )
7. Does the denial of access to a child by one parent constitute a material change in circumstances?
Yes. Consistent denial of access by a parent can be considered a material change in circumstances, as access is an inherent right of the child and essential for their holistic development. (Para 31 , 35 )
8. Can child access be conditioned upon the payment of child maintenance?
No. Access to a child is a fundamental right and must never be used as a bargaining chip or leverage to ensure the payment of child maintenance. (Para 32 )
9. Does the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against a parent justify a variation of child maintenance?
No. Bankruptcy proceedings are not an appropriate basis for arguing a substantial change in circumstances to warrant varying terms pertaining to child maintenance. (Para 41 )
10. How does the court treat procedural defects in affidavits when no prejudice is caused to the opposing party?
Courts are inclined to allow parties to rectify procedural matters to address substantive merits, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not obstruct the delivery of substantive justice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 )
Evrol Mariette Peters J:
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1]This was an application (“this Application”) by the Petitioner husband in enclosure 23, seeking to vary certain terms of the decree nisi dated 17 May 2017 (“the Decree Nisi”).
[2]In the interest of privacy of the parties concerned, and sensitivity of the issues in these proceedings, the Petitioner Husband, Petitioner Wife, and their two children have been anonymised in this judgment as HEN, HIN, MEY, and TEL respectively.
The factual background
[3]In accordance with the Decree Nisi, custody of the two children (“the Children”) of the marriage was awarded to the Petitioner Wife. Simultaneously, the Petitioner Husband was granted reasonable access to the Children. Additionally, the Petitioner Husband was obligated to provide monthly child maintenance in the amount of MYR3,000.
[4]The Petitioner Husband filed this Application in February 2023, seeking a variation of the Decree Nisi relating to the terms governing access to the Children and child maintenance. This Application was rooted in the following grounds: Firstly, the Petitioner Husband asserted that he had been denied access to the Children by the Petitioner Wife since 2017. Secondly, he contended that the Petitioner Wife had previously agreed for payment of child maintenance to cease on condition that the Petitioner Husband forfeit his access to the Children.
[5]I allowed this Application only to the extent of varying and specifying the terms of access, for the following reasons.
Issues
[6]The following issues were considered by this Court:
(i)Whether the Petitioner Husband should be allowed to rely on his affidavit in support which was affirmed pursuant to an earlier application that was withdrawn;
(ii)Whether a consent order was subject to variation; and
(iii)Whether the Petitioner Husband had established material change in circumstances.
Contentions, evaluation, and findingsWhether Petitioner Husband should be allowed to rely on his affidavit in support
[7]The Petitioner Wife raised a preliminary objection regarding the affidavit relied upon by the Petitioner Husband, which was affirmed on 20 October 2022 (“the October 2022 Affidavit”). The Petitioner Wife’s argument centred on the fact that the October 2022 Affidavit was initially affirmed pursuant to an earlier and similar application in enclosure 12 that was filed by the Petitioner Husband in October 2022. That earlier application was withdrawn in February 2023.
[8]Consequently, the Petitioner Wife contended that the Petitioner Husband should not be permitted to rely on the October 2022 Affidavit as his Notis Niat Mengguna-Pakai Afidavit was filed only in April 2023, after the October 2022 Affidavit was refiled in February 2023 in support of this Application. She asserted, therefore, that the Petitioner Husband should have filed a fresh affidavit in support of this Application.
[9]Although the Petitioner Wife was technically correct regarding the October 2022 Affidavit, it was unequivocal that she had not suffered any prejudice as a result of this oversight. It was crucial to emphasise that even though the affidavit was originally affirmed in October 2022, it was refiled in February 2023 to support this Application. Notably, the Petitioner Wife had also responded to the October 2022 Affidavit, which was a clear indication that she was not prejudiced.
[10]At this point, it was pertinent to reiterate the well-established legal principle that Courts are inclined to afford parties the opportunity to rectify procedural matters, and address the substantive merits of a case, rather than permitting technicalities to obstruct the delivery of substantive justice, particularly when no prejudice is inflicted upon the opposing party. This jurisprudential trend is discernible in numerous precedents, including cases such as Redang Paradise Vacation Sdn Bhd v. Yap Chuan Bin & Other Appeals Maril- Rionebel (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Perdana Merchant Bankers Bhd & Other Appeals United Malayan B
