S Nantha Balan JC:

INTRODUCTION

[1]This is an application for committal by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband which is predicated on the latter’s failure to make various payments as ordered by the court in the course of matrimonial proceedings. The sole issue that arises in this matter is whether a failure or refusal by a party to comply with an order of court to make payments (whether by way of lump sum or instalment payments) constitutes an act of contempt so as to entitle the other party to commence committal proceedings against the defaulting party. Ordinarily, the remedy would be for the party who is entitled to these payments to commence execution proceedings for recovery of the amounts that are payable under the order of court. The question that arose in these proceedings is whether, apart from execution proceedings, the party in breach may also be subjected to committal proceedings by reason of breach of his obligation to make payments as per the court order. It is obvious enough that the issue has wide implications not only in matrimonial proceedings but to all legal proceedings which culminate in monetary orders. Hence, if non-payment constitutes an act of contempt, then the consequences will be grave for all those who are in breach of any (lump sum or instalment) payment as ordered by the court as they will find themselves facing committal proceedings and suffer the pain of a fine or imprisonment or both.

THE BACKGROUND

[2]The background to this matter is that the petitioner/wife (‘PW’) and the respondent/husband (‘RH’) were divorced pursuant to an order that was made on 23 December 2011 (‘the order’). The order was made after a full trial. The order contains monetary terms which had to be fulfilled by RH and non-monetary terms pertaining to guardianship, custody, care, control and access in respect of the two children of the marriage. There was also an order for the disposal of the matrimonial home and for the proceeds to be divided. There was also a monetary order that was made against the co-respondent or the interloper of the marriage but that aspect of the order is not relevant for the purposes of the instant application that was made by PW against RH. For completeness, the terms of the order are set out below as follows:

(a)perkahwinan antara pempetisyen dan responden dibubarkan;

(b)pempetisyen diberikan hak jagaan dan ‘sole guardianship’ ke atas kedua-dua orang nak lelaki bernama Goh Yue Shen (No Daftar Sijil Kelahiran BJ 02067) dan Goh Yue Zhen (No Daftar Sijil Kelahiran BN 45109) dan responden diberikan hak lawatan di hujung minggu pada setiap dua minggu;

(c)responden membayar kepada pempetisyen wang sebanyak RM4,000 setiap bulan sebagai nafkah untuk kedua-dua orang anak lelaki (RM2,000 untuk setiap anak) pada atau sebelum 7 haribulan setiap bulan;

(d)responden membayar kepada pempetisyen wang sebanyak RM6,000 setiap bulan sebagai nafkah untuk pempetisyen pada atau sebelum 7 haribulan setiap bulan;

(e)responden membayar kepada pempetisyen wang sebanyak RM10,000 pada setiap awal tahun sebelum 7 haribulan bagi perbelanjaan percutian kedua-dua anak lelaki dan pempetisyen dan bagi perbelanjaan berkaitan Tahun Baru Cina serta persediaan sekolah kedua-dua orang anak lelaki;

(f)responden membayar fee persekolahan, fee tuisyen dan perbelanjaan lain bagi pelajaran dan pendidikan kedua-dua orang anak lelaki sehingga tamat ijazah pertama berdasarkan bil-bil atau dokumen yang dikemukakan bagi tujuan tersebut;

(g)responden meneruskan bayaran premium insuran bagi kedua-dua orang anak lelaki yang sedia ada;

(h)pempetisyen diberikan setengah bahagian ke atas rumah alamat No 16, Lengkok Betek, Taman Sri Jaya, 14000 Bukit Mertajam, Pulau Pinang dan nilaian setengah bahagian dibayar kepada pempetisyen dalam tempoh enam bulan dari tarikh perintah ini dengan cara penjualan hartanah No 16, Lengkok Betek, Taman Sri Jaya, 14000 Bukit Mertajam, Pulau Pinang pada nilai harga pasaran setelah menolak kos jualan atau alternatifnya