JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an Originating Summons filed by the applicant, Sathiah A/P Shanmugam ("the wife"), seeking to set aside two orders recorded in the Divorce Petition proceedings No.: JA-33-221-05/2024, namely:

(a) the consent order dated 3 December 2025 ("the consent order"); and

(b) the Order dated 11 December 2025 ("the enforcement order").

[2] The applicant also seeks a stay of execution of both orders pending the disposal of this Originating Summons, costs, and any other relief this court deems fit and just.

[3] Having read the submissions of both parties, having considered the affidavit evidence filed, this court now delivers its decision and sets out its grounds.

Background

The Parties And The Children

[4] The parties were married on 4 December 2016. They have two children:

(a) Khogulan A/L Suresh, born on 14 December 2019, now aged 7 years ("Khogulan"); and

(b) Rishika A/P Suresh, born on 7 July 2022, now aged 4 years ("Rishika"), (collectively, "the children").

[5] On 13 January 2023, the applicant filed an action at the High court of Muar (Originating Summons No.: JA-24F-3-01/2023) for custody of the children. At that time, Khogulan was 3 years old and Rishika was 5 months old.

[6] On 15 May 2023, the High court of Muar ordered that the rights of custody, care and control of the children be granted to the applicant, with supervised access to the respondent twice a week at a public place and video call access twice a week.

[7] On 5 July 2023, the order was varied to grant the respondent unsupervised access to Khogulan once every two weeks from Saturday 10.00am to 6.00pm and unsupervised access to Rishika from Saturday 10.00am to 2.00pm. Both parties filed appeals to the court of Appeal.

[8] In 2024, Divorce Petition No.: JA-33-221-05/2024 was filed. The case came before the learned Family court Judge on 3 December 2025. What transpired on 3 December 2025 is sharply disputed. The two competing accounts are as follows.

[9] According to the applicant, her solicitor on record, Puan N.S. Naqieya, was abroad on 3 December 2025. Cik Parimitaa A/P Krishnamoorthy from the same firm attended on her behalf for the purpose of the mediation session. The applicant attended court with her children.

[10] The learned judge met with the applicant and requested the children be brought in for a judicial interview. Following the interview, the court proposed a general settlement. The applicant states she clearly informed the judge that she needed time to think and was not prepared to make any decision without first consulting her solicitor. She left the court without signing any documents, without agreeing to any terms and without giving consent to anyone to record any order on her behalf.

[11] The applicant states she was never informed that any terms had been recorded as a consent order. She only became aware of its existence upon receiving the sealed document in early January 2026.

[12] Having reviewed the audio recording of the proceedings (exh SB-7 in the respondent's affidavit), the applicant deposes that the recording shows:

(a) Cik Parimitaa introducing herself as attending for Messrs N.S. Naqieya;

(b) the respondent's counsel stating the case was fixed for mediation;

(c) the parties and counsel speaking, though the audio was unclear; and

(d) the matter being stood down until 2.30pm for mediation. She contends the recording contains no reading of any consent order terms, no confirmation of agreement by the parties and no pronouncement by the court.

[13] According to the respondent, the applicant was present with Cik Parimitaa, who appeared on behalf of Messrs N.S. Naqieya. They sat together and conferred throughout. The applicant never informed the court she was unrepresented or needed an adjournment.

[14] The learned judge directed the children to chambers for a judicial interview. The respondent asserts that Rishika ran to him and embraced him and the judge observed the children showed no fear of their father.

[15] A det